Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Children's Health

[Relevant documents: Second Report from the Health Committee, Session 1996–97, on The Specific Health Needs of Children and Young People (HC 307-I); Third Report from the Health Committee, Session 1996–97, on Health Services for Children and Young People in the Community: Home and School (HC 314-I); Fourth Report from the Health Committee, Session 1996–97, on Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (HC 26-I); Fifth Report from the Health Committee, Session 1996–97, on Hospital Services for Children and Young People (HC 128-I); The Government's Response to the above Reports, published as Cm 3793.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I express my appreciation and that of members of the current Select Committee on Health for the opportunity to debate in detail the reports produced in the previous Parliament on children's health. I particularly thank those hon. Members who, like me, have been up all night for their presence at the debate. It is a tribute to their commitment to the issues that we shall be discussing.
I find myself in the unusual position of introducing a debate on four reports produced by a Committee of which I was neither the Chair nor a member. Therefore, my introduction will be somewhat general. However, I am delighted to see in the Chamber two Committee members from the previous Parliament: the former Chair, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), and my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise), who devotes great energy to this issue. I know that they will address in detail many of the points picked up by the Committee.
For the record, the Health Committee's inquiry ran from February 1996 until March 1997—just before the general election. It received some 500 submissions and conducted 19 oral evidence sessions. It is fair to say that it was a very thorough inquiry; the hon. Members involved deserve our congratulations on considering serious concerns in depth. The Committee issued four reports. The first two were published on 27 February 1997, and the final two were published on 18 and 26 March 1997. In an effort to conclude the inquiry, the Committee met 29 times in a four-month session shortly before the general election.
The reports from the 1996–97 Session covered a range of areas. The Committee's second report addressed the specific health needs of children and young persons; the third report dealt with home and school; the fourth

report addressed mental health services; the fifth report considered hospital services. In introducing the debate, it is obviously important to stress that the contents of the reports refer to the policies of the previous Government. I pay tribute to Ministers in the new Government for the way in which they have picked up many issues raised by the Committee.
Last July, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston and I met the Minister of State, Baroness Jay, and had detailed discussions with her in the Department of Health. We are also grateful for the formal response that the Government gave in November to the recommendations in the reports.
As a background to the debate, I particularly welcome the efforts of the Select Committee in the previous Parliament. I welcome also the chance to discuss the contents of its reports. It has been my long-standing concern that Parliament rarely gives detailed consideration to child welfare and children's health. There are few debates on those subjects, so it is commendable that we have the chance this morning—I hope that we shall have more chances in due course—to examine an area that is much neglected.
It is said that children should be seen and not heard, and I believe that that saying typifies the attitudes to children's issues that have prevailed in this place—certainly during my time as a Member—until very recently. For generations, little consideration was given to the key concerns of children and young people.
One reason for that attitude is that, until recently, the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament were male. Some of the male membership wrongly held the view that child care is a women's issue rather than an issue for men and women; but that attitude is changing. During my time in Parliament—and at 5 o'clock this morning, when we were discussing corporal punishment—I have been struck by the number of hon. Members, especially Conservative Members, who still place their children in private boarding schools. They probably have less contact with their children in term time and less knowledge of their children's concerns than I have. I am generalising. I accept that that does not apply to all Conservative Members, but a significant number of them have dispatched their children to school. Parenting at home has perhaps been second hand, because nannies have taken the bulk of the responsibility for the care of the children.
I welcome the radical changes that have occurred since the general election, such as the great increase, certainly on the Labour Benches, in the number of women Members of Parliament. The impact of that will be far greater consideration of wider issues of family policy, and of the health and well-being of children and young people.
Perhaps it is because I have reached middle age or beyond, but I also welcome the radical reduction in the average age of Members, which will afford us far more opportunities to discuss the concerns of children and young people. It is a particular delight that several of my female colleagues have just had or are expecting babies. That is healthy for Parliament, because their experiences of the health service and of caring for young children will be brought to bear in debates. In the past, opportunities to debate a huge area of policy have been missed because the vast majority of hon. Members, because of their age or background, had no direct experience of children's and young people's issues.
The changes have resulted in a radical sea change in attitudes. About 10 years ago, I was attempting to persuade the Whips Office that I needed time off to be present at the birth of my second child. There was a good deal of resistance, because the poll tax was coming through. I was told that there would be rebellions by Conservative Members, and that I had to be at the House. My daughter's arrival was delayed, and I was able to be present at the birth. My discussions with female colleagues who have recently been through those experiences suggest that there has been a radical change in the views of parliamentary business managers, which bodes well for future discussions about children and young people.
Members of the Select Committee will reinforce the fact that the overall picture of children's health and well-being is encouraging. The figures in the reports show falling mortality rates and marked improvements in the ability to treat children with diseases and to reduce the extent of those diseases in a range of ways. From our different perspectives, we all welcome those advances, which have been delivered relatively recently.
Nevertheless, the Select Committee has identified several key anxieties that relate to wider policy areas outside those for which my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health is responsible. For example, the number of children who are killed and injured in road traffic accidents is alarming. That tragedy should be urgently addressed, and we must consider our personal transport habits. There has been a rapid increase in childhood asthma. I regularly visit schools in my constituency, and virtually every classroom has a supply of inhalers. It is tragic that such young children have been affected by problems that, in many areas, are directly related to traffic levels and pollution.
Transport policy must be reappraised radically if we are to have an effect on the health of young people, and I welcome the fact that the Government are soon to publish a White Paper on it. With regard to respiratory problems and asthma, I also welcome the steps that the Government are taking to reduce smoking. I look forward to the White Paper on smoking. As the Minister knows only too well, the Select Committee has produced but one report on tobacco so far in this Parliament. We feel strongly that urgent and radical steps must be taken to deal with the effect that passive smoking has on the lives of children and young people.
The Select Committee identified the mental health problems of children and young people as a key anxiety, and wider issues such as the increased incidence of family breakdown must be considered when addressing them. I urge my hon. Friend to discuss with her colleagues the apparent conflict between policies introduced by the previous Government, such as that between the Children Act 1989, which had cross-party support, and the operation of the Child Support Agency. The 1989 Act is underpinned by the welfare principle—the welfare of the child should prevail in relationships with the state and the natural family—but the CSA operates in such a way that children's welfare is the last thing to be considered. I see that too often in my constituency: CSA interventions often cause conflicts that damage children's welfare, and there is a knock-on effect on their well-being.
My personal anxiety about the mental health problems of children and young people is that we increasingly place far more pressures and stresses on them than we did when I was a youngster. Children do not have anywhere near as much freedom to enjoy childhood as I had. We make them grow up a great deal sooner, which is directly connected to the sad increase in mental health problems.
Eating disorders, especially among teenage girls, are a consequence of body image and the way in which the media reinforce what is expected of girls and, to a lesser extent, boys. The drug and alcohol culture has developed beyond that of the 1960s and 1970s, when I grew up.
The Select Committee rightly highlighted areas for specific action which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston and the hon. Member for Broxbourne will want to mention. It identified the lack of comparable data on children's health, which is discussed by the Acheson report on health inequalities. Although Government adult health figures can be compared, a comparison of children's health is not possible. I hope that the Government will rectify that through the health inequalities initiative on which Sir Donald Acheson will report.
The way in which children's services are fragmented over a range of professionals and agencies was emphasised. I had never heard of the children's community nurse service; as far as I know, it does not operate in my area. I was interested to discuss with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston the services that it offers. There are also health visitors, the school nursing service, social services and education services. The Committee is considering the divide between health and social services, and has rightly drawn attention to the fragmented provision and to how problems sometimes slip between the various agencies and professionals.
People in my area recently experienced the problem of the dreaded head lice, which caused great distress to many parents who look after their children and attend to their welfare. That problem arises throughout Britain, and it is difficult to decide who is responsible. Does responsibility lie with the school, the district nurse or the family? We need to consider carefully how to address this distressing, if not serious, problem.
It is obvious from the reports that, in the past, the health service has failed to recognise the separate needs of children. The report on hospital services emphasised that many hospitals do not take account of the specific needs and problems of children and young people.
I have my own interpretation of the Committee's conclusions, but other members of the Committee may take a different view. In my view, the Committee has clearly identified the need for much greater strategic vision in relation to provision for the health of children and young people. The Minister was a member of the Committee, and knows that there is a Cabinet Sub-Committee on Women's Issues. Perhaps we should consider a similar arrangement to oversee children's health and issues pertaining to them.
Perhaps the Minister will give us some information about collaboration between Departments. I served with the Minister, as a shadow Minister. She will remember that, at that time, we had a shadow Minister for children. There is a strong argument for a Minister with specific responsibility for children's issues who can span Departments and draw initiatives together.
Perhaps the Select Committee will consider the issue of a children's rights commission, which has been debated for a long time. It was raised in a recent inquiry into children who are being looked after. I welcome the Government's initiatives on children's health and their willingness to consider the issues that the Committee identified. I appreciate that wider policy changes, in particular the abolition of the internal market, will have a direct impact on the health of children. The expertise in commissioning children's services was discussed in the Select Committee.
I welcome the suggestions in the NHS White Paper on primary care, because they will certainly bring together community services that are currently fragmented. The Budget positively discriminates in favour of poorer families, and we know that there is a direct connection between poverty and the ill health not just of adults but of children.
The Committee's report on children who are being looked after was initiated in the previous Parliament and, because of its importance, was picked up by the new Committee. I hope that the House will debate that report soon. I also hope that this debate will be the first of many that will reflect a new political agenda for children and young people.

Mrs. Marion Roe: I am pleased to be called to speak in this important debate, and to have the opportunity to comment on the four reports on children's health; the inquiries took place when I was Chairman of the Select Committee on Health in the previous Parliament. I thank the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for bringing those reports to the Chamber, and for his kind comments. I pay tribute to all my colleagues on that Committee for their constant support and commitment to our work.
It was the first time that the Select Committee had held an inquiry into services for children and young people. Twenty years had passed since the publication of the last comprehensive Government review of children's services—the Court report, "Fit for the Future"—and there had been no major parliamentary inquiry into the subject. That may surprise some people, because media hype about children easily lulls us into the trap of thinking that children, who comprise about a quarter of the population, receive excellent health provision that is specifically designed to meet their needs.
As the hon. Member for Wakefield has said, there is no doubt that the overall epidemiological picture is encouraging. Childhood mortality rates have been falling steadily for more than 100 years and are lower in the UK than in many comparable developed countries. There have also been significant improvements in the incidence and severity of childhood illnesses. However, areas of significant concern remain, and although the number of deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents have declined steeply in recent years, they remain high in absolute terms. There is considerable scope for further improvement, as there is for accidents generally.
There are still problems with respiratory and infectious diseases, and asthma, in particular, appears to have increased over recent decades, for reasons that are imperfectly understood. Mental health problems among children and adolescents may be increasing. Finally,

there are the problems of success. Children who, in the past, would have died now survive with varying degrees of disability or need for care.
Unfortunately, the Committee's inquiry also identified areas of major concern and revealed that the specific needs of children were commonly ignored in the NHS. Our overall terms of reference were to consider
The specific health needs of children and adolescents, and the extent to which those needs are adequately met by the National Health Service".
We identified several major themes that were common whichever aspects of services for young people and children were studied. I hope that the new Committee will utilise the findings of the four reports to undertake further inquiries on individual aspects of care. I am pleased to note that the new Committee has resumed and completed the inquiry of major importance, "Children Looked After By Local Authorities". I look forward to seeing its report.
It is crucial that the inquiry's findings are not ignored because of the change of Parliament. As Chairman of the previous Committee, I urge the new Committee to be vigilant and to ensure that that does not happen. I hope that it will require the Department of Health to provide regular reports on its progress relating to the inquiry.
In their response issued in November, the Government
Healthy children are much more likely to become healthy adults and we must make sure that we are investing in the future".
They also agreed with the Committee that
The health needs of children are significantly different from those of adults, that they are a particularly vulnerable group, and that the provision of effective health services for children depends upon a thorough understanding of their special needs.
The Government's response states:
The Department of Health will be discussing the future structure and development of health services for children with the service, the professions, users and their representatives. The Committee's reports will inform the debate about the specific policies of the new Government, and will help set the agenda for the future. Accordingly, we are not yet able to offer the Committee a substantive reply on many of their recommendations.
Although I accept that any new Government have many issues with which to contend, I have seen little evidence of activity either specifically relating to our conclusions or recommendations, or in the involvement of professions, users and their representatives. It appears that the Department of Health has no intention of consulting anyone other than its own civil servants. That must be rectified. I for one do not intend to let all the work on the four reports following that first inquiry into children's services be ignored.
The Committee recognised and welcomed the undoubted improvements in some areas of children's health in recent decades, but that should not lead to complacency or to an under-estimation of the importance of a change in attitude, leading to child care that is more child centred. Many factors have contributed to those improvements: immunisation, health education, improved nutrition and housing are just a few. I welcome the Government's acknowledgment that the reports echoed the fundamental philosophy of their public health initiative and the fact that they are carrying forward the public health initiatives to which the previous Government gave such serious attention.
The rewards of good health care in childhood, especially health promotion and preventive interventions, are unique, because the benefits may last a lifetime and may be passed on to future generations. We all recognise that. Therefore, it seems incredible that health visiting and school nursing posts are being dramatically reduced. That group of health professionals has played such an important role in keeping children healthy.
The Committee received an enormous volume of evidence across a wide range of topics, but several themes were prominent in every aspect of health services for children and young people. The first theme we identified was that, at present, services for children do not always consider the specific needs of children. Too often, they are based on traditional customs and practices or on professional self-interest. Children's health services must be needs-led, not based on historical patterns or the self-interest of provider groups.
That was obvious in myriad examples, some practical and involving few, if any, additional resources, such as grouping children together in out-patient clinics, rather than mixing children and adults together. Another example was of information wholly designed for adults being sent to child patients. How can a mother feel confident that her small child's needs will be met when the information that is sent refers to refraining for a defined period from returning to work or resuming sexual intercourse? We would not appreciate information advising us that we should not attend nursery school or be permitted to play boisterous games such as football. Children have as much right as adults to receive information that is appropriate to their needs.
On a more serious note, it is worrying that many of our witnesses felt that, some six years after the purchaser-provider split, purchasers still did not have the necessary commitment to, or expertise in, purchasing services that focus on the specific needs of children. Department of Health policies relating to children's services rarely appeared to have been considered by the commissioners.
Some commissioners appeared to limit specific services for children to immunisation and health surveillance. The needs of children who were ill appeared to be completely subsumed within services for adults. We therefore recommended that hospital services for children should be purchased as part of an overall package of services for children. To rectify the problem, we also recommended that each purchasing authority should appoint a lead commissioner for child health services. The Government's response was: 
We agree that health authorities could benefit from having an individual who has a lead role in the commissioning of child health services".
That lacks commitment. Again, children's specific needs are given less attention than those of adults.
A basic tenet of all Governments since 1959 has been that children should be nursed in children's wards among their own age group, with appropriate facilities for parents, play, leisure and educational activities, and that staff providing care should have undertaken specific training in children's needs, yet many witnesses gave examples of children being put in adult wards—even when there were empty beds in the children's ward—

with no contact with specifically trained staff. That situation was often referred to as "surgeon's shoe leather syndrome." Some surgeons do not want to walk down the corridor to the children's ward from the adult ward in which the majority of their patients are placed.
That was clearly an example of the recurrent theme that services were too often based on traditional custom and practice or professional self-interest, and not in the best interests of the child. The Committee therefore recommended that the percentage of children admitted to adult wards should be included as a performance indicator in the Department of Health's annual hospital performance league tables. That would focus the minds of hospital managers, clinicians and purchasers on the importance of meeting that target. We also recommended that all the standards that are set out in the "Charter for Children and Young People" should be monitored.
I am sure that I was not the only member of the Committee to be staggered by the Government's response, which stated that their evidence was contrary to all that the Committee had received, as only 1.2 per cent. of children admissions are to a hospital without a children's ward. As a paediatric nurse said to me, the only reason for such a response is that the Department is being extremely economical with the truth, or deliberately obtuse, or it is completely ignorant of the reality of the situation in acute hospitals.
In reply to the Government's response to our reports, a Royal College of Nursing press release stated:
We believe that the Government had simply failed to understand the situation. The problem is widespread in hospitals which do have children's wards and it is the reality which the Government has failed to address.
The RCN's paediatric nurse managers forum has recently completed a survey of hospitals with a children's ward. It showed that the third commonest cause of concern of paediatric nurse managers was children in adult wards.
I was pleased to note in the Government's response that they were considering whether care of a child outside a children's ward should be a centrally returned quality indicator. I should be grateful if the Minister would inform me whether a decision has been made and, if so, what it is. If no decision has been made, when will it be made, and will she assure me that her decision will be announced in the House?
The care of children in accident and emergency departments provided evidence of similar lack of implementation of well-established good practice guidelines. More children attend A and E departments during a year than are admitted to hospital. Children comprise almost one third of A and E attendees. It is reasonable to expect that high priority should be given to children's needs in those departments. The Secretary of State for Health has properly drawn attention to the violence that is now common in A and E departments. What must it be like for young children to witness such events?
The 1996 Audit Commission report "By Accident or Design" showed that even separate waiting areas for children, recommended since 1959, were uncommon. The Department's response ignores our conclusions and recommendations. I specifically ask the Minister personally to consider children in A and E departments.
Another of the "cardinal principles" stemming from 1959 is that children should be admitted to hospital only if the care that they require cannot be provided as well at
home, in a day clinic or on a day basis in hospital. To facilitate that, community children's nursing services must be rapidly expanded.
The Committee was unanimous in its concern in discovering that in 1997, almost 40 years after the expansion of community children's nurses was recommended, only 50 per cent. of the country had such a service. Only 10 per cent. provided a 24-hour service. The Department of Health report on the evaluation of the pilot projects between 1992 and 1997, published last month, concluded that
community children's nurses make a vast difference to these families.
We would all agree that, whenever possible, children should be nursed at home. We were interested to learn how children's community nursing teams enable parents to care not only for children following a short acute illness or surgery, but for children who require long-term care due to major chronic illness and/or disability. That included children requiring special feeding techniques or ventilators to assist with their breathing.

Ms Julia Drown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Roe: No. I have so much to cover and time is limited. The hon. Lady will forgive me, but I still have some important points to put on the record.
Only a few years ago, such children, if they had survived, would have spent their whole lives in an institutional setting. Now, if community children's nursing and appropriate social care are available, not only can such children live at home with their families, but they can participate in activities of the local community and be integrated back into school—some into mainstream schools.
We were most concerned to hear that, despite continual Government recommendations to expand services, the Department has paid so little attention to their provision. Our recommendations for the rapid expansion of community children's nursing services are clearly set out in our reports. For many years, such a nursing service has been available to all adults in their own homes. We consider that, as a matter of principle, sick children need and deserve no less. It is another example of the needs of children being given less consideration than those of adults.
We all recognise that children's health needs are different from those of adults. Children become more ill more quickly and more seriously than adults do, even those with the same condition. Safety margins are much narrower and, due to their stage of development, children have difficulty in telling us what is wrong, particularly when they are ill.
Like my fellow Select Committee members, I had always assumed that health professionals, particularly those for whom children are the focus of their work, would be required to have undertaken specific training. That is not so, yet staff caring for adults undertake long training focused on the needs of adults. How strange it is that children receive an inferior service.
Clinical effectiveness is of concern to us all, yet we received evidence from surgeons that a considerable number of operations are being performed on children unnecessarily. In 1996, the Royal College of Paediatrics

and Child Health, in association with other royal colleges, issued a report entitled "Children's Surgical Services", which sets out the principles for those services. We recommended that the Department should issue explicit guidance to all those involved, reminding them of the good practice guidance and the need to monitor implementation.
While welcoming such reports from professional bodies, the Government's response is that they will consider how to encourage everyone to comply with them. That is not satisfactory. Successive Governments seem to spend considerable time "considering"; it is about time that action was required. I am waiting to see whether any action will be taken or whether such an announcement will prove to be no more than rhetoric.
An aspect of care that gave serious cause for concern—so we devoted an entire report to it—was child and adolescent mental health. Even the Department of Health witnesses agreed that current provision is inadequate in quality, quantity and geographical spread. In recent years, the House has rightly heard much about unsatisfactory mental health services, but our debates have been almost totally confined to services for adults.
Child and adolescent mental health services seem to feature at the bottom of the agenda in both mental health and child health services, and there is little public sympathy either for the children and young people concerned or for their parents.
Prevention is by far a cheaper option than treatment at a later date, when a plethora of problems have arisen, and health, social services, education and the youth justice system are involved. How many of those in prison, costing the country millions of pounds, would have become involved in criminal behaviour if their mental health difficulties had been addressed earlier? The paucity of services results in difficulty of access.
Successive Governments have devoted attention to the waiting time for surgery, but no such targets or the resources to meet them are available for child and mental health services. Only last week, the Select Committee's adviser informed me that his waiting list for an appointment is now 12 months. It is very difficult for those of us who have not had to experience the trauma associated with a mentally disturbed child or teenager to imagine what it must be like to have to wait at least 12 months for an appointment unless the child attempts suicide.
In common with consumer and professional groups, I was extremely disappointed that the Government response stated that they had no plans to set up a committee on children and young people. In Scotland and Wales, Ministers with responsibility for children review, develop and co-ordinate Government policy and strategy for children.
The House has a responsibility to represent all our constituents, particularly the most vulnerable. I was not fully conversant with how orientated our services are towards adults and so often ignore the needs of children, who represent 25 per cent. of the population and our future. Children are a vulnerable group. They have no political vote and cannot lobby Members of Parliament, yet they are not even to have parity with women by being given a Cabinet Sub-Committee. Surely that cannot be right.
The Government's response stated that they have a children's strategy group, which includes representatives of all the main Government Departments concerned with children, thus co-ordinating their activities. That does not convince me that fragmentation will be reduced. It was obvious from the evidence of Government witnesses that there was much about the services of which they appeared to have little knowledge and no mechanism for obtaining it. That is not good enough.
I remind the House that children are our future. The first inquiry into service for children and young people identified the serious lack of action by successive Governments on policies that were agreed by the House, consumers and voluntary bodies. It is about time that action rather than rhetoric was forthcoming. Why are our health services so focused on the needs of adults? Surely, as the 20th century nears its end, the needs of children should receive the same attention as those of adults. A notable achievement for the millennium would be in 2000 for the Secretary of State, backed by the facts, to confirm that all the principles of health care for children and young people had been implemented.

Audrey Wise: I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on chairing the Select Committee during the inquiry. It was a long inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said that it started in February 1996. However, terms of reference and an appeal for evidence were published back in summer 1995, so we gave those in the field an ample opportunity to prepare evidence. The whole process has resulted in a substantial report of no less than eight volumes—four volumes of reports and four volumes of evidence to back up their conclusions.
One of the main and best characteristics of the work of the Select Committee is the publication of the evidence. I am pleased that, in their interim response, the Government have said that that substantial body of work would inform the debate. My only worry about the report is that it costs £131.60 to buy the whole of it, so I fear that its circulation is unlikely to be as wide as its contents merit.
Like the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I have noted that the Government's response is an interim one; I must advise the Minister, in the friendliest possible way, that I have carefully annotated the Government's responses, paragraph by paragraph, and will seek out suitable opportunities to pursue each one. Never let anyone think that a promise by the Government to "consider" something will be allowed to die the death: it will not.
One of the good features of the new Government's policies on health is their emphasis on the baleful effect of inequality. The Committee said:
We were surprised to hear from the Department of Health that there was no readily accessible data on variations in child health by region and social class. It is our understanding that there is a considerable body of evidence going back to Sir Douglas Black's report in 1980, 'Inequalities in Health', and before, which deals specifically with this topic. We welcome the Department of Health's announcement that further research into the nature and extent of variations will shortly be commissioned".
The Government's response states:
the Secretary of State for Health has asked Sir Donald Acheson to report to him on social, geographical, ethnic and sex inequalities of health … The health of children is likely to be a key component of this report.

I am not sure that that sufficiently meets the case. I hope that the Government will convey to Sir Donald the firm idea that the health of children must be a key component of his report; otherwise, his report will not be the valuable document that we need.
The Committee looked first into whether children need any special attention. Are they not simply miniature adults? This view, although perhaps not entertained in theory, has been prevalent in practice. Thus, children being prepared for surgery are prepared just as though they are adults. That can be harmful, because, as we learned, children's physiology is different, and all their body processes work faster. In short, they are very different from adults. I will not dwell on all the differences, because the hon. Member for Broxbourne covered them competently.
Another difference between children and adults is that children must be considered in context. A doctor can treat an adult for a particular problem—we think ourselves quite lucky if the doctor treats us as a whole person. I do not mean any offence to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), who is sitting directly opposite me—I hope that he will not take my strictures personally. As I was saying, we feel lucky if we are considered as a whole person rather than, say, a walking stomach.
With a child, it is not enough to say, "This is a whole person." One cannot sensibly deal with a child without dealing with that child's context—the family. Professionals dealing with children are dealing not just with individuals but with whole families. For this and many other reasons, children require a different service.
This fact seems to have been overlooked by Governments, planners and managers. We became aware that many of the professionals struggling to provide a good service feel undervalued. It is almost as though, because children are small, those caring for them, and their talents and expertise, are also thought of as small. That is a wrong point of view.
I was surprised to learn during our visit to Great Ormond street hospital that paediatrics is quite an unpopular specialty. Paediatricians often earn less than other doctors—they do not go in for private practice—and they work longer hours. In general, they are regarded somewhat as the Cinderellas of the profession.
As we continued our inquiry we discovered that there is a lamentable lack of properly qualified and trained children's nurses. Only 3 per cent. of nurses hold a children's nursing qualification. That results in a ratio of one nurse to 1,400 children, which is clearly ridiculous. Depending on where we mark the boundary between childhood and adulthood, children make up between one fifth and one quarter of the population. We do not say that between one fifth and one quarter of all nurses should be children's nurses, since children are generally reasonably healthy—but 3 per cent. is ludicrously low.
We also discovered that the guidance to the effect that there should always be two registered sick children's nurses in a children's ward during the whole 24-hour period is not observed; and whereas adults expect district nurses to treat them at home, there is no such adequate service for children. There have been district nurses for adults for about 100 years, and our report draws attention to the fact that children should be entitled to the same service. But 50 per cent. of the population have no access to properly organised, co-ordinated children's community


nursing services, and only 10 per cent. have access to a 24-hour children's community nursing service. That is deplorable.
We found in the course of our inquiry that children's community nurses have additional duties; the recommendation made to us by the Royal College of Nursing about how many children's nurses are needed to provide a good community service was based on the notion that an important part of their work is training parents to do for their children what adults are not expected to do for other adults for whom they are caring. I refer, for instance, to passing nasal gastric tubes. Those of us on the Committee who are parents or grandparents found ourselves thinking about how we would have managed even if we had been lucky enough to have a trained children's nurse to show us the procedure. We were not especially enamoured of the prospect.
Our estimates of the necessary increase in the number of these nurses are based on the most conservative calculations.

Ms Drown: According to my reading of the report, the Committee found that areas with a children's community nursing service provided care that was not only better but more cost-effective. In three instances, the cost was between 11 and 43 per cent. of the cost of treating the children involved in hospital.

Audrey Wise: My hon. Friend is right, and the Government acknowledged that. I was therefore rather disappointed that, in their response to the report, they said—referring to improvements that might be made—
This might include hospital at home schemes, community paediatric nursing and improved primary care services.
There should be no "might" about community paediatric nursing.
The eight-volume report covered many issues. One was the patients charter as it applied to children. The charter states that parents may "expect" certain things, but we discovered, on examination, that that "expectation" could be deemed to be no more than a target—something very different from a right.
We investigated the response to respite care needs, and found it to be totally inadequate. We also investigated the need for proper equipment to be provided, and heard from witness after witness that it was also very inadequate. We heard repeatedly about the fragmentation of services, and about problems relating to the boundary between social services and education, and health services. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is interested in that aspect. We certainly feel that it requires special attention, not only in relation to the elderly but in relation to children.
We found that parents were being told to take home and wash equipment labelled "For single use only". One mother who had to use a suction device to clear a child's airway was given a packet of six for a week, although she had to clear the child's airway 56 times in that week and the packet was labelled "Use once only". I hope that the Minister will take our recommendations in that regard seriously.
We considered the need for accident and emergency departments to be properly designed for children. We pointed out that, although children use accident and emergency services far more than in-patient services, some hospitals seem to ignore the fact.
We looked carefully at the whole range of children's problems and needs. My overriding impression was that, if I had to name the most important thread, it would be the nursing thread—the need for a seamless nursing service, with properly qualified nurses. Children's nurses receive excellent training, but unfortunately not all places are being taken up, because of the exigencies of training budgets.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider all those points carefully. I promise her that I shall come back to her for regular updates on the Government's interim response.

Dr. Peter Brand: I must declare an interest, especially for the benefit of the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise). I was destined to become a paediatrician, but moved sideways to become a holistic family doctor in general practice.
The report is valuable, as today's speeches have been. I know that time is short, but I want to highlight two parts of the report that illustrate the lack of a national strategy, which has caused confusion in regard to the local delivery of services for children. One part deals with medical advice and treatment for children in schools, and is relevant to yesterday's prolonged debate.
In many areas, school nursing services have been cut to such an extent that they have become almost irrelevant, given the vast task that needs to be performed. That task involves surveillance, immunisation, the advising of parents, teachers and pupils, the identification of social care needs, all the work connected with child abuse, the identification of special educational needs, health promotion, the support of children when they first experience anxieties about sex and, indeed, the protection of children from the consequences of sexual activity.
I am disturbed by the fact that those services have been allowed to decline without consideration of children's needs. We seem to be considering which agency is responsible for a particular service rather than what a pupil requires. As has been explained, children with a vast range of medical needs now attend normal schools. It is unreasonable to expect a single nurse to meet those needs, especially one with a potential case load of between 2,500 and 5,000 patients spread over 15 schools.
There should be a much more flexible framework, allowing specialist community nurses who may be attached to hospital departments—and practice nurses, who are very experienced in the treatment of such conditions as epilepsy and asthma—to go into schools and advise not just teachers but children themselves.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: In Cambridge and Huntingdon, in my constituency, there is a greater integration of the services provided by health visitors and school nurses, but that integration is in the context of what is euphemistically termed disinvestment. What that has actually meant is redundancies among health visitors and a reduction in services, which are focused only on children who are understood to be at risk. Because of that, we have lost the universal screening services that promote good health in children and help them to become healthy adults.

Dr. Brand: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point, which illustrates what I am about to say.
We need to use the specialist skills that are available to the community to help people in their homes and those visiting GPs, but also to help people in schools. Children are people, and they are entitled to all those specialist services. Not all services need to be delivered by specialist paediatric nurses. This is another example of the achievement that is possible for the NHS, provided that it encourages team work.
The second issue that I must mention is the provision of mental health services for children and adolescents. There seems to be almost universal confusion about the roles of education, social services and health departments. A cultural apartheid seems to apply to the various people who deliver mental health services to, in particular, children and adolescents. It is rare for educational psychologists to talk to clinical psychologists or psychiatrists, and social workers do not get much of a look in. That must be changed. It is not just the child who suffers in such circumstances.
A few years ago, the only place where I could send a psychiatrically disturbed 12-year-old lad was the local police station. The adult mental health facility would not take him, and he was too disturbed to be put in a paediatric ward in the local hospital. That is not satisfactory. It is a direct result of planning failure, which is itself due to the lack of a national strategy.
I welcome the spirit of the Government's response to the reports, but I am disappointed at the lack of detail. This debate is particularly valuable, in that it enables us to extract further details from the Minister about the direction in which she believes that these important services should go. It is not only the children who matter, but their parents, their carers, their teachers and the broader community.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I shall be as brief as possible, as not only do hon. Members want to hear from the Minister, but she will want to respond to the points that have been made.
The series of reports represents a formidable piece of work. When I first read my Whip, I thought that the debate would last for three hours, which I did not think would be long enough—one could not even read the reports in that time. When I realised that it would last for only an hour and a half, I knew that our work would be cut out.
The introduction to the second report sets the scene very well. It says:
Childhood is a period of rapid and uneven development … Illness, disability and problems of mental health which develop during childhood may remain with an individual throughout life … Twenty years have passed since the publication of the last comprehensive Government review of children's health services, the Court Report … The Court Report contained over 200 recommendations".
It also points out that the Department of Health said that it could not provide a check list showing whether those recommendations had been met, as there had been so many reorganisations in the national health service.
The Select Committee concludes that its consideration of reports dating back to 1959

reinforces our view, which has gained in strength as our inquiry has progressed, that the special needs of children are given insufficient priority by policy-makers, health service professionals and others who in one way or another have a responsibility for children's well-being. Changes in attitude, not merely in policy, are clearly needed.
Although that is stated in the introduction to the inquiry, I think that it probably says it all.
Anyone listening to this debate—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) that listening to it or reading it will be less expensive than buying the reports to read—will have realised that this is the House of Commons at its best. A report that was prepared under the previous Conservative Government has been introduced on the Floor of the House by the current Chairman of the Health Select Committee. Most of our work in the House is a seamless robe, which sometimes the public do not realise. I commend the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for staying up—as I hope to do for the next few minutes—and I thank him for his kind words about the way in which the Select Committee carried out its work, including under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe).
I mentioned that the reports represent the first major inquiry since the Court report. When they were issued, they were welcomed by one and all. Baroness Jay said of the Select Committee:
We welcome their reports, which will make a substantial contribution to the debate on children's health.
I make no criticism in saying that, although they are a substantial contribution, they must ultimately represent more than a contribution.
I have not totalled the number of specific recommendations in the reports, but even on a cursory count I reckon that there are at least 70—I could not begin to go through them all in the time I have. Indeed, it is always invidious on such occasions to highlight particular recommendations, but I shall point out the issues that struck me as relevant, in the knowledge that other hon. Members with greater experience of the Select Committee have highlighted the same recommendations.
The Select Committee said:
health services for children and young people are not always designed to meet their needs, but may be based on traditional custom or on the convenience of the provider. They are not always delivered by appropriate staff.
It also said that it
endorses the 'cardinal principles' set out in Department of Health guidance on hospital care for children, but doubts the extent to which they are actual achievements, rather than aspirations. In particular, the principle that children should not be in hospital unless absolutely necessary cannot be met given the current inadequacy of community nursing
care. It went on to say:
many hospitals fail to meet the Department of Health standard of having at least two registered sick children's nurses on duty 24 hours a day … the Patient's Charter standard that children should be cared for in a children's ward under the care of a paediatric specialist is not being met; it is recommended that such information should be collected as part of hospital performance league tables to reinforce its importance.
That point has rightly been made by a number of hon. Members.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that children are subjected to a vast array


of environmental hazards—such as ionising radiation—which may explain the increase in childhood leukaemias both in this country and in the United States? Would not reducing such hazards lead to a decrease in the number of illnesses to which young people, with their sensitive bodies, are subjected?

Mr. Nicholls: With a medically qualified doctor, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), sitting to my left, and another, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), sitting opposite, I shall have to be careful in passing judgment, but I think that that must be right. The hon. Member for Preston rightly said that childhood is dangerous; like the last days of one's life, it is a difficult time. I welcome the fact that we are moving away from the idea that children are mini-adults and can be treated as such. It is difficult to know where the dividing line falls, but children's experiences are clearly different.
The Government's detailed and thorough response to the reports was commendable. As has been said, the reports represent an agenda for action—we all share the duty to ensure that there is action. Again, time does not permit me to go through the details, but I shall mention some of the responses, both to commend the Government and to point out that further action will be necessary.
On page 13, the Government say:
We do not believe that it is acceptable for children to be treated by inexperienced and inappropriately trained staff. We shall ensure that measures are taken to address this problem. This will include continued action to increase the numbers of relevantly trained staff.
During the debate, hon. Members have stressed the importance of staff who are trained in the care and treatment of children. I believe that the Government's aspiration is laudable, and I hope that the Minister will find time to say something further about it.
In its extremely helpful briefing, the Royal College of Nursing highlights what the Government say on page 16 of their response. The Government state:
We acknowledge the past shortages of qualified children's nurses have limited the opportunities for the health service to benefit from their skills. As the number of children's nurses increases, their skills can be utilised in many more areas of healthcare for children and young people.
The Government's reaction is fine and right, but we need the Minister to explain how the number of children's nurses will increase.
On page 38, the Government say:
As the Committee noted, there continues to be a need for more child trained nurses. The NHS Executive has asked education commissioners to ensure that sufficient children's nurse training commissions are placed to meet the recommendations of the Clothier enquiry (to have at least two Registered Sick Children's Nurses or equivalent, on duty 24 hours a day in all hospital children's departments and wards) and, in addition, that adequate provision has been made for the staffing requirements of paediatric intensive care units.
Again, I commend the Government for their response, which was exactly right, but we need to have some idea of how they believe that they can take that process forward.
In preparing my thoughts for the debate, it seemed to me that three common themes ran through the reports. First, there is reference to the fragmentation, and lack of child-centredness, in the delivery of many child services. Secondly, there is a failure to follow existing good practice guidance. Thirdly, there is training, training and training, a point that has been made throughout the debate.
What is interesting about the reports—I say this as a compliment, not as a criticism—is not so much that they break new ground as that they remind us of how much there is that has yet to be implemented. It is significant that the Court report was issued in 1976 and that other official Committee reports go back to 1959 because it illustrates how Governments and Select Committee reports have so often failed to pick up and run with the excellent work done. I referred to the Department of Health's response that it could not comment on whether the Court report had been dealt with, because rules had changed and the matter was difficult.
New Governments have an opportunity. This Government are not quite bright and spanking new—if I may pinch a theme of an earlier debate in which the hon. Member for Wakefield and I were involved—but they are pretty new. We are also fortunate that the Minister for Public Health's commitment to the health and welfare of children is thoroughly accepted and appreciated on both sides of the House. There is an opportunity for a new Government to ensure that the sins of the past are not repeated. I would like to think that constructive suggestions by Opposition Members on how recommendations may be taken forward and the brooding and extremely experienced presence of the hon. Member for Preston, combined with what the Minister will bring to the matter, will ensure that the reports' recommendations will not suffer the same fate as the Court report, and that, in 20 years' time, they will be seen as an agenda that was taken forward.

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I join others in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) for her stewardship of the Select Committee on Health and her contribution to the debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise).
All speeches in this very important debate have made it clear that the Select Committee's conclusions and the Government's response to them are in the light of the development and implementation of children's services under the previous Government. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Preston referred to the Government's response as interim, I hope that members of the Committee will not be holding their breath over the publication of the next stage of the Government's response.
I should make it absolutely clear first that I would expect nothing less from my hon. Friend the Member for Preston than her persistence and vigilant scrutiny of Government action in the light of the reports' many recommendations, and secondly, that the Government are as one with the Select Committee in its determination to meet the many shortcomings in the service that the reports identified. I hope that there can be a spirit of partnership and common purpose as we take action in areas where the need for it has been so clearly identified.
It is important to reflect on the difference between the approach adopted by this Government and that adopted by the previous one. Several hon. Members have made clear the devastating impact of inequalities in health on children's opportunities. Inequalities are evident in almost every aspect of young children's lives. Health services for


very young children are so important because they can act as an instrument to combat inequality and to promote greater fairness and opportunity for all children. That is so when judged by any measure.
Let us consider accident rates. The child who is born into a family of social class 4 or 5 is five times more likely to die in an accident before the age of 15 than a child from social class 1 or 2. Stark regional variations can be linked to poverty, unemployment, pollution and lack of educational achievement. Enormous regional variations occur in the incidence of tooth decay, which is very important to the developmental health of children. As our public health Green Paper makes clear in considering the likelihood of survival of children in the first year of their life, the most telling indicator is the country of birth of their mother.
Tackling inequality sits at the centre of the Government's approach to dealing with the problems that the Select Committee raised, as does our commitment to insisting on consistency of quality. The Select Committee was rightly critical of the preoccupation with numbers rather than the consideration of quality of interventions.
We are absolutely at one with the Select Committee and several speeches in the debate about the extent to which the impact of good work and services can be sabotaged by fragmentation. It is an enormous challenge for health, social and education services to move to treat the child as a whole person in context, as part of their wider family. That is the challenge for the Government, local government and local health services.
In the context of Sir Donald Acheson's report on health and equality, to which several hon. Members referred, it is important to understand that not all children who appear to suffer the same social and economic hardship necessarily suffer the same degree of ill health as a result. We need to understand much more about the protective factors that can act. That has been a major preoccupation of the review of services for children under the age of eight, which I have chaired as part of the Government's comprehensive spending review.
We intend to build on the very important contribution of prevention in our investment in the health of children, reiterating and underlining the importance of immunisation. I draw to hon. Members' attention yesterday's very important statement from the Medical Research Council and the Chief Medical Officer about the

desirability of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccination to protect children against what were previously killer diseases.
Yes, we are absolutely committed to strengthening the role of health visitors and the important contribution of school nurses, but it is important that their role develops as part of the strengthening process, at a pace that reflects the change in the nature of services, the importance of overcoming fragmentation and the importance of applying evidence of what works.
Yes, we are determined to overcome the unacceptable degree of local variation and inequality in access to services. That is why the national health service White Paper stressed the importance of national frameworks. Yes, we see the development of healthy schools, harnessing the resources of health and education, as a very important contribution to overcoming fragmentation and the treatment of the child as a whole person.
I shall pass quickly through the specific points raised in the debate. On proposals for a Minister for children as a way of overcoming fragmentation, I draw hon. Members' attention to my remarks about the efforts to scrutinise across government the effectiveness of spending on children, reflecting the importance of how we put in place structures that address the whole child.
We are dissatisfied with the data on the level of community nursing available to children and on establishing the extent to which children are being treated as if they were adults requiring adult services. That is unacceptable. We recognise that that is particularly a cause for concern in relation to adolescents, which is why £2 million of the mental health specific grant will be dedicated to the development of child and adolescent mental health services. We are certainly open to the case for a lead purchaser for children. Target setting in relation to mental health is very much a preoccupation of the current consultation on the public health Green Paper.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston made an important point about ensuring that equipment in hospitals is used only once, but clinical advice suggests that specific guidance may be provided on equipment used at home.
We are concerned about the shortage of children's nurses, as we recognise the important point that children are not merely small adults: their needs are very specific.
I hope that I have made absolutely clear the Government's commitment to acting on the recommendations of this important report. We see this is as the beginning, not the end, of the process, and we recognise that we must invest now for the future health of our children.

Railway Regulation

[Relevant document: The Third Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on The Proposed Strategic Rail Authority and Railway Regulation (HC 286-I).]

11 am

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: One of the strengths of the House of Commons is its Select Committee procedures and the ability to take detailed evidence on matters relating to individual Whitehall Departments; to consider carefully their impact on legislation and on the future developments of particular industries; and to take account in every way of the varying views of those who are involved, in this instance, in transport.
I was thrilled to introduce the first report of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, on the strategic rail authority. The Committee is lucky in having representation not only from the Conservative party but from our colleagues from across the water in the Ulster parties, and I believe that it is capable of producing a high-quality piece of work.
I warmly welcome the opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House the result of Select Committees' deliberations. It is very sad when a Select Committee produces an enormously detailed and useful piece of work that is introduced at a press conference and gets some superficial publicity only if members of the specialist press happen to be present. I am grateful that the Liaison Committee has found time to recommend that we talk about the strategic rail authority this morning. I am also grateful to my colleagues on the Select Committee and to those who helped us to prepare the report.
When the railway system was fragmented, it became obvious that there would continue to be different political views on how the future of transport should be handled. The Select Committee decided not to look backwards, as we had produced a large report on privatisation before the general election, but it was clear from all the evidence we took that there were still real difficulties in railway transport.
The difficulties were not only in the structure of the existing privatised railways. It was hard to determine the best way forward, and there was an overall lack of a strategic view. We were heartened by the Secretary of State, who gave us a clear commitment, on behalf of the Government, to create a strategic rail authority. We saw our role as that of taking evidence that could help to construct that authority and ensure that it covered all the aspects of its responsibilities to the House of Commons that would make it a really effective and useful body. That is what the report delivers.
The consensus across the railway industry on the need for a strategic rail authority was heartening. Of course, some will feel that some of our recommendations went too far and will find them too political. The aims of an authority were not only accepted but asked for. Regardless of whether we spoke about the manufacturing industry, about those who deal with passengers or about those who deal with freight, it was clear that the lack of guidance, overall responsibility and forward planning was felt throughout the industry.
We took evidence on the roles of the various parts of the Government machine that deal with the railway industry: for example, the role of the regulator. We considered what the aims of a strategic authority should be, and how it should plan its use of Government finance. We deliberated how it should consider the various parts of the industry, in relation not only to one another but to the job that they are required to do for the passenger.
The strategic rail authority must, first and foremost, have responsibility to the customer, who is being badly served by the privatised railways, and to the taxpayer. It is an extraordinary fact that the taxpayer is paying double the subsidy that went to the old British Rail system, and receiving just about half the level of service. Performance is patchy across the railway industry as a whole, but it should be a matter of concern to every one of us.
We envisaged that, as the Department said, the authority should manage the existing franchise; develop a strategic vision for investment in the national network; act as a one-stop shop for progressing investment proposals; take responsibility for some of the functions currently exercised by the Secretary of State; promote integration between rail and other modes of transport; consider the need for voluntary action by the operating companies to win more passengers; and promote the needs of disabled passengers and the personal security of all rail passengers.
We also felt that there was a need for clear accountability. The taxpayer pays for the system and initiates the money-go-round whereby large sums move in a large circle that stops at a certain point. The House is responsible to the taxpayer.
We must have clear links between elected bodies and the rail authority. The Welsh assembly and the Scottish Parliament, as well as this Parliament and the regional decision-making bodies, will want to have a direct input into both the type and the quality of services. If we are to have a radical improvement in the integration of rail, a great deal of work must be done to maximise the benefits of the existing system and develop passenger and freight services.
Many of our witnesses gave a clear picture of the existing regulator's role and said that changes needed to be made and that the regulator would always have a role as an arbitrator between certain areas of the industry. We felt that, although the regulator's role needed to be revised, he should maintain an independent status, umpiring contracts and considering fair competition issues. A lot of the work of restoring the original requirement in section 4 of the Railways Act 1993 would mean, however, that he had to take guidance from the Secretary of State. The regulator accepts that he should not be operating independently.
We believe that, in discussing the future of the railway system, we should carefully consider the role of Railtrack, which is today with great fanfare launching its report on its future role, with many comments on its intended investment in the future of the railways. Many of us will regard those figures with some disenchantment—I shall not say disbelief; that would be ungracious and unacceptable—but it is important to remember that vast sums of public money go into privatised railway subsidies. Although subsidies are nominally paid to the train operating companies, most of that public money comes back to Railtrack in the form of track access charges.
The answer to my written parliamentary question of 3 November 1997 revealed that the subsidies paid to the train operating companies in 1996–97 amounted to £2.099 billion. The same answer revealed by some uncanny coincidence that the income to Railtrack from track access charges was almost identical. If that is not a back-door subsidy to Railtrack, I should like to know what is.

Mr. James Gray: I do not wish to breach the all-party consensus of the report, but will the hon. Lady acknowledge that the £17 billion that Railtrack intends to invest over the next 10 years is much more than the public subsidy that she described, and certainly more than the Government would have spent had British Rail remained in their hands?

Mrs. Dunwoody: There are no plans for the extension of the main-line electrification network. Cities such as Sheffield, Aberdeen, Hull and Bristol will continue to be served by diesel trains for the foreseeable future. The west coast main line continues to deteriorate every day, and Thameslink 2000, which is to paid for by a massive debt write-off by the previous Government, looks as far as away as ever. I should be happy if Railtrack's figures materialised in practical investment terms.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is a valued member of my Committee and knows that there is considerable disquiet about the way in which Railtrack does its accounting. It has not been transparent in the past, and maintenance is not regarded by most qualified accountants as a suitable heading in connection with investment. It is clear that Railtrack has not lived up to the previous record. It has needed to be prompted, to put it in the most polite way, by the authorities already because of the shortfall in investment. It is obvious that it has considerably underspent on track and structure renewals. There is a £385 million backlog on property maintenance. Those figures are a great worry, which we must consider carefully.
Our report sets out the belief that Railtrack should no longer control safety. Our railways have always had good safety, from the time when a man walked in front with a red flag. We are a little faster than that, although not on all privatised lines. The Committee believes that there is a problem in safety remaining part of the existing organisation. The time has come to set up an independent transport safety authority that would not only continue to safeguard the levels of care that have been endemic in the railway industry, but prove to the customer how independent it is and what a good job is being done at every level. We want Railtrack to lose that aspect of its work. We should like safety regulation and the safety standards directorate to be transferred to an independent safety authority.
We also make considerable recommendations on the need to transfer freight from road to rail. There is no point in Governments talking about that need unless there is a practical way of achieving it. I hope that our suggestions will be acted on.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Freight is a significant factor in the report. The relationship between road and rail

transport—the intermodal system—must encourage more freight on to rail. A significant void exists there. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must impress on Ministers that the intermodal exchange between road and rail is important and should be developed?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Committee not only emphasised that but offered various solutions, given the need for clear strategic planning if we are to achieve that useful aim.
We also suggested that customers have little idea who is responsible for what in a fragmented railway. It is all very well for those of us who understand what Railtrack is supposed to be and what train operating companies and ROSCOs—rolling stock companies—do. Customers waiting for trains, late or otherwise, have little understanding. We were disturbed because we did not believe that existing customer organisations were easily accessible or understood or that they were performing the task necessary to reassure customers.
If we are to have standards, customers must know what they are and how to complain efficiently and simply, and they must be sure that something will be done about their complaints. We suggested that the consumer organisations should be reorganised and given a much higher profile. They must have ways of advertising what they are doing and be given a bit of muscle, so that they can shout out for the passenger. That need is felt strongly by anyone who uses the existing system.
The SRA will provide a comprehensive, clear, single body reporting to the Secretary of State. It will analyse the needs and demands of the new railway system to find which aspects are failing. It will insist on high customer standards and ensure that investment goes where it is needed, when it is needed. It will seek high—quality standards so that the ways in which passengers receive services are clearly marked and capable of delivery. It should also promote a radical improvement of the integration of rail with other transport modes.
In achieving its aims, it will need to demonstrate to the public that we are no longer prepared to accept considerable amounts of taxpayer's cash going in without clear accountability and transparency of accounting procedures, and without direct responses to the needs of customers: high—quality rolling stock; high-quality services; clean, tidy and safe stations; and proper facilities for those who use the system.
To that end, we suggested that the Minister should seriously consider whether the British Railways Board should be used as a benchmarking facility. The franchises will have to be examined as they come up. Many of us believe that some of them will collapse before the end of the franchise period. The board could be used to judge the efficiency of the system and whether it is delivering what it should. There may even be a case, although there is political disagreement about this in the Committee, for the Government taking equity in Railtrack to ensure that there is a clear line of accountability to the passengers who use the service.
I hope that the House will not just debate the report, but act on it. It is a good report—although that may be rather immodest from the Chairman of the Committee. Again, I should like to pay tribute not only to the individual members, but to those who helped us prepare and take evidence.
The report looks forward, but—for obvious reasons—it will be differently interpreted in different parts of the House. However, it is constructive, useful and detailed, and it needs to be acted upon. I expect my Government to lead the way in giving that chance to the transport system of the new century.

Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and I should like to express my appreciation of the way in which she chaired the Select Committee. Those of us who know her know that she is a lady of considerable views, and it was a marvellous feat for her to chair a Committee in which there was a great deal of consensus. Speaking as someone who admires her for her views, I was pleased to see today that she occasionally returned to type.
This is the first major report produced by the Committee, and I wish to refer to the way in which Opposition Members have approached it. It is clear that the Government intend to have a strategic rail authority. We had a choice of either blindly opposing everything and trying to wreck the Committee, or of laying down benchmarks for when we examine the matter in a Bill. The latter was the right approach. The railways have gone through a period of considerable change and upheaval, and they need a period of stability in which long-term investment can be committed.
Railtrack and the train operating companies have an impressive programme of work planned, but investment takes time. I must take issue with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich—£17 billion is a serious sum. Some £5.5 billion on maintenance is a serious sum. Some £8 billion on renewals is a serious sum, and enhancements of more than £3 billion involve a serious sum of money. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, there would have been nothing like those levels of investment within the public sector.
It is early days, but rail privatisation is following the same predictable path as previous privatizations—unpopular in its early stages, with all the cumulative ills of the past half-century being blamed on privatisation. If we were to substitute BT or British Airways for Railtrack in the current headlines, we could run the same stories as ran previously. Those who predicted gloom and despondency then had to eat their words, and they will have to do so again.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns and those of my constituents at two derailments in my constituency earlier this year? One involved a passenger train in which eight carriages out of 10 derailed. That had never been heard of before rail privatisation. Does he accept that there are occasions when Railtrack may be forcing contractors to do work on the cheap, something that affects not only the track maintenance but the employees of the contractors—all of which has happened since privatisation?

Mr. Pickles: I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the evidence from the Deputy Prime Minister. I specifically asked him about such claims, and he said that there was no evidence that Railtrack had in any way compromised itself in terms of safety. On this occasion, the Deputy Prime Minister's word is good enough for me.
In a perverse way, the change of Government has made the commitment of capital slightly easier, because there is a realisation that there is no possibility—as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said—of renationalisation. The old British Railways Board is dead, and soon, we hope, will be forgotten. The future of the railways remains firmly in the hands of the private sector. The Committee was not attempting to renationalise the railways or to make them vulnerable to short-term political interference. Those points might have been better made before privatisation, as the taxpayer would have received considerably more money had the uncertainty been removed.
We have seen a steady growth in passenger numbers, reversing the decline that occurred over a number of years. The evidence suggests that passenger growth could be as high as 25 per cent. by 2005. It is important that we look at the subsidy, which is set to decline over the next 10 years, and we must remember that a lot of BR debt was taken on by the companies.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to freight, which BR largely neglected. A 20—year decline in this country was reversed once English, Welsh and Scottish Railways took over. Less than 6 per cent. of freight in this country is transported by rail. On the continent of Europe, the figure is a more impressive 15 per cent. The evidence from EWS was that it was likely to triple its business within 10 years, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that, by 2010, 20 per cent. of freight will go by rail. That is 20 per cent. of a growing market.
There are a number of practical restraints on the further expansion of freight, and those need some attention. First, there is the problem of the restrictive loading gauge. If we are to see any significant increase in freight, we must ensure that high gauges are available. That will allow new international containers to be used, and it will also allow for the possibility of increasing the capacity of wagons by about a third. More importantly, it will allow piggy—backing of heavy goods vehicles. The last point was referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister as vital for haulage in the long term.
There is a considerable conflict between the needs of passengers and the needs of freight. Improvements for passengers—faster trains and more frequent services—often work to the detriment of freight. We must understand that there are environmental considerations, including noise problems. Much of freight is moved at night. I live about half a mile from a busy railway line, and I have noticed an increase in the amount of traffic in the past few months. Constituents who live closer to the track have started to complain—not unnaturally—about disturbed sleep.
We must remember that most of our freight is not time-critical: a load is sent off, but it does not matter whether it arrives the following day or a couple of days later. However, if we are to increase the amount of freight that travels by rail, we have to be able to carry time-critical freight, which means that people will be able to guarantee that a load leaving Aberdeen can be in Brentwood the following morning.
The Committee also gave consideration to the problems of international rail travel. The channel tunnel has not yet proved to be the catalyst in persuading road hauliers to
switch to rail; in fact, the tonnage carried is roughly 40 per cent. of the predicted level. The cost of travelling through the tunnel and on continental railways is such that it starts to become economic only when there is the prospect of travelling through the Alps. Continental European railways are still heavily nationally focused, and it remains, peculiarly, easier to get a truck across a European border than it is to get a train across; trucks have to fill in fewer forms, and the process is quicker.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Might not our concentration on the channel tunnel prove to be to the detriment of the 96 per cent. of British imports and exports that go through ports? In addition to the other measures that the hon. Gentleman suggests, it might be a good idea to follow a policy of ensuring that Railtrack improvements relate to movements in and out of ports, especially bottlenecks in freight movements immediately around ports.

Mr. Pickles: I do not take issue with that at all, but I believe that the channel tunnel plays an important part in the expansion of rail. I find it difficult to explain to constituents who are hauliers why it is considerably more expensive—three times more expensive, according to the Road Haulage Association—to take a heavy goods vehicle through the tunnel than to send it in the shuttle, which uses the same track and the same tunnel.
The report covers two controversial matters: the equity share in Railtrack and the British Rail Board competing for franchises. We received little evidence on that, except from Save Our Railways and the Labour Finance and Industry Group, both of which seemed to take a similar position on most issues of substance. To my way of thinking, the credibility of Save Our Railways was somewhat dented when it had to withdraw some exaggerated claims in front of the Committee, as hon. Members can read in the second volume at paragraph 197.

Mr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that Save Our Railways' offices are in precisely the same place as the rail unions' offices and that it is, to a significant and majority degree, financed by the rail unions?

Mr. Pickles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, of which I had not been aware, even though, at times when listening to Save Our Railways' evidence, it was like living on the last page of George Orwell's "Animal Farm", when it was no longer possible to tell the pigs from the people.
Although the strategic rail authority may care to consider whether the Government should take an equity share in Railtrack, it would be madness to do so. It would achieve nothing: not a single mile of track would be laid, nor an additional carriage purchased, nor a single station made cleaner; there would be nothing but the resonance of old clause IV.
As the report states, for the British Rail Board to compete on
a fair and transparent basis",
it would have to be in the private sector. If it were in the public sector, it would intimidate and prevent fair competition. Any analogy between BRB competing for a

franchise and a local authority contracting out to a direct labour organisation is frankly ridiculous. There was no evidence to support that view, other than from Save Our Railways and the Labour Finance and Industry Group.
If the strategic rail authority becomes a hands-on authority, second-guessing commercial decisions, it will fail. If it takes away powers from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and remains truly strategic in nature, it may succeed. It needs to tackle that delicate and crucial balance between the needs of passengers and those of freight. Above all, in the words of the report, the SRA needs
to foster a climate that encourages private investment in the railways".

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I wish to raise with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) one point that I consider to be a significant factor in this debate. When the previous Government privatised the railway industry, the franchises given to many of the companies were so short that the companies now feel that it is not possible to invest in new rolling stock or the new materials that are required to ensure that they can meet the demand for passenger and freight services. The Conservative Government did not give sufficient thought to the way in which the privatisation should have taken place, and I hope that the Select Committee's report will address some of the deficiencies of the privatisation programme.

Mr. Pickles: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a simple question? Is he advocating that the franchises should now be extended and, if so, by how long?

Mr. O'Brien: I can advise the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is now considering representations from some of the franchisees, particularly Great North Eastern Railway, which is suffering from overcrowded trains and having difficulty meeting demand. My right hon. Friend is rightly giving consideration to the circumstances of a very competitive line in an area that will improve considerably as time goes on. There is one proviso, which is that the companies keep fares at a level that people can afford; otherwise, there is a danger that we might have a railway system that is out of the reach of many of those who would like to use it. My right hon. Friend has to look at many factors when considering the extension of franchises, and I support his views on that issue.
I felt that I had to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar to the deficiency in the hurried rail privatisation programme of the previous Administration, although I do not want to move away from the Select Committee report. There are pages of evidence from the various witnesses, who contributed well to the work of the Committee. In each case, there was general support for the introduction of the strategic rail authority and, with the support in the House and within the industry, there is a fair wind for the Committee's proposals. 1 make that point to my right hon. Friend the Minister because I consider that the Government must act on at least some of the recommendations in the report. Failure to do so would impede the programme for an integrated transport system, which the report could help to bring about.
That was the point that I made when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). We need to have the integration of road transport with rail transport to ensure that freight provision, which has been neglected for so long, can be improved. Although in the past rail freight has been moved during the night, there is evidence that some freight trains are being moved by day. That will help freight movements to take place within a reasonable time and, as a result, people will increasingly accept the possibility of moving freight by rail.
Hon. Members will have received briefing material from the Scottish, Welsh and English railways, setting out some of the anxieties that they expressed to the Select Committee—directly and in briefing material—about the introduction of the strategic rail authority. We are advised that they are introducing new locomotives and new wagons, which shows that greater capacity is needed to move freight by rail.
I emphasise that we must try to remove lorries from the motorways and, in many instances, from towns and cities, by transferring freight to rail, so that it may enter city centres without creating road traffic. I make a plea to the Minister to examine the evidence that has been submitted on overcrowding of some trains—especially on the east coast main line—and the evidence submitted by Lord Berkeley and his colleagues on the movement of freight.
I conclude my remarks because I know that my colleagues, who took evidence for many long hours, want to make a contribution. I believe that the Government should act on a significant amount of that evidence, and I hope that the Minister will take note of the contributions that have been made.

Mr. Tom Brake: Although I welcome the opportunity to debate the report, I regret the fact that none of my party served on the Transport Sub-Committee, which considered this matter in so much detail. However, I have read the report, and there is much in it that the Liberal Democrats can support.
We welcome the fact that the report draws attention to failings in the regulatory system introduced by the previous Government in their headlong ideological rush to privatise the network. The report says that, under the Conservatives, the Rail Regulator was left with
no enforceable obligation on Railtrack to spend the cash from public subsidies on maintenance and renewal of the network".
That appears to be a major omission, as does the fact that the Rail Regulator was left without scrutiny powers over the rolling stock companies.
The Rail Regulator had to dismiss Railtrack's 1997 network management statement as unsatisfactory because of a significant backlog in investment. Earlier today, Railtrack had an opportunity to show that it took last year's red light seriously. I hope that it will be evident from this year's network management statement that Railtrack acknowledges that it has a role in the development of the country's infrastructure.
The results of biannual customer satisfaction surveys produced by the train companies, which must have been of great interest to passengers, remained unpublished for many years. I am sure that the volunteers who run the Bluebell railway could have run the railways better than the previous Administration did.
Looking to the future, many of the report's recommendations would have been implemented even if a strategic rail authority had not been established. We support more demanding train service quality targets. We strongly support the moratorium on the sale of land by the British Railways Board, which is a source of major concern. If one is trying to extend a network, it restricts one's scope if all the prime sites that can be used are being sold.

Mr. Gray: If the hon. Gentleman considers the report carefully, he will see that there is no question of a moratorium on the sale of land by the British Railways Board, but that there is a question of Railtrack being given the same opportunity as other bidders when land is sold. That is a different matter. There is no presumption in the report that the right of the British Railways Board to sell land will be interfered with.

Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the report specifically mentions a moratorium.
We strongly support the retention of the fines and penalties levied on the train operators for immediate reinvestment in passenger benefits rather than the Chancellor's slush fund. We support the shift of responsibilities for safety matters from Railtrack to an independent body, although it is worth confirming that, as was said earlier, the safety record appears to have remained very good, even after privatisation. We support the relaunch of the rail user committees. Those organisations are supposed to represent passengers, but I am afraid that their profile appears to be no larger than the stickers that are stuck in train carriages.
Our support for the report is qualified. We question how strategic the strategic rail authority will be if all the report's recommendations are adopted. There is a great risk that, by taking on so many of the operational tasks performed by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Rail Regulator, the strategic rail authority will lose its focus and neglect key objectives, such as that of developing a vision for investment in the national rail network. The strategic rail authority should be about strategy and broad objectives; it should not be about the timetabling of the 7.23 am Connex South Central service from Carshalton Beeches to Victoria. Moreover, the creation of the strategic rail authority should not involve such an upheaval in the rail industry, or such a diversion of funds, that no progress is made in clearing the backlog of between 15 and 20 bottlenecks in the system.
We seek clarification of the funding arrangements for the strategic rail authority, especially as a sharp drop in subsidy is planned for the train operating companies—from £1.8 billion this year to £0.8 billion in 2002–03. It would have been preferable had greater consideration been given to the establishment of a strategic transport authority. That would, by necessity, have had a very restricted remit, to avoid the prospect of the operational overload that already worries us in relation to the smaller responsibilities of a strategic railway authority.
The Government have repeatedly stated their intention to produce an integrated transport policy. What better way is there of promoting such a policy than through the auspices of a strategic transport authority? For example, that strategic transport authority might take responsibility


for devising the Government's programme of CO2 reduction in relation to transport. That is an area where, if action is not taken almost immediately, the Government will not have a snowball in hell's chance of meeting the Prime Minister's commitment to a 20 per cent. reduction by 2010, or even the Deputy Prime Minister's more modest commitment to ensure that, in 2002, traffic does not exceed 1997 levels.
The Liberal Democrats approve of many of the measures in the report. We shall monitor the development of the strategic rail authority, but we shall pull the emergency cord if the authority grows into an inflexible, unwieldy beast, with an appetite for detail but no vision.

Mr. George Stevenson: The importance of the report is that it is forward-looking.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), spoke about a period of stability. If that means maintaining the status quo, with our railways not delivering what we want them to deliver, I would disagree with him. I suspect that many of the interests running our railways see stability in that way. The report is not about the stability of the status quo, because the status quo is not acceptable.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar also spoke about Railtrack's plans for investment—good: we live in hope, and we hope that those plans become reality. Heaven knows the amount of public money that was squandered by the previous Government on privatising the railways. It was billions. The amount of public subsidy has doubled since privatization—a fact which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge. One would expect some hard evidence of the improvements that we are promised. In the public interest we can demand that those improvements take place. We shall wait and see.

Mr. Gray: Evidence is in place already. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Railtrack's investment in the first six months of last year was 38 per cent. higher than in the first six months of the previous year?

Mr. Stevenson: I am also aware of the damaging criticism of Railtrack's record by the regulator and the Health and Safety Executive. That is not a political point that we need waste the time of the House debating, as the hon. Gentleman seems determined to do. Well-respected outside organisations are extremely critical of Railtrack's investment record. The report rightly concerns itself with that criticism.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred to the intention that the public subsidy should be reduced over the next few years. I know that that is the intention, but if it is reduced to £0.8 billion, it might bring us back to the level of public subsidy that existed under the dead hand of British Railways. If many more such dead hands are removed, the Treasury will have apoplexy, because every time a dead hand is removed, the public subsidy doubles. I am sure that that is not what the Government want.
The significance of the report is that it tells Government that we need to take a strategic view of our railway infrastructure and provision. That never occurred to the

previous Government. They were concerned only with privatising and fragmenting the railway system, which is what happened. The report points out to Government that, if the railways are to play the economic, social and environmental role that the country wants them to play, a strategic overview is essential.
The Committee was of the unanimous view that we cannot achieve that strategic approach with the present fragmented system. It would be impossible, and the Government should not waste their time trying to do it. We therefore strongly support the concept of a strategic rail authority, which would have an over-arching responsibility to bring a strategic view to a critical provision in our transport sector. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar rightly observed, that provision brings not only enormous challenges but enormous potential. We want the strategic rail authority to play a central role in ensuring that that potential is achieved.
That is the first point that needs to be made to my hon. Friend the Minister, who is listening intently to the debate. That message is the factor of overriding importance that the Committee considered when we took evidence and deliberated on the contents of the report.
The second aspect that I would underline is the difficult but crucial concept of public confidence. It is true that there is no hard evidence to suggest that safety is being compromised by Railtrack and the train operating companies, but there is undoubtedly a public perception that the profit motive will ultimately override those considerations. We examined the matter carefully.
Public confidence is essential if the Government are to succeed in the enormously important task of reinvigorating our railways. In that regard, the report makes several recommendations, one of which is crucial—that we should no longer tolerate the responsibility for safety being left with Railtrack. There must be a separate, free-standing body to examine the issue dispassionately, far removed from the profit motive and commercial interests. The public interest must be its overriding responsibility. If, at the end of the debate, my hon. Friend will say that the Government will pursue that aim vigorously, they will have done the railway industry, the country and the public at large a great service.
My final point involves a different aspect of the public interest. How do we bring to bear the enormous influence—not interference, but legitimate influence—of Government, for which the report calls and which most of us want? How can we, for example, tolerate a situation where the rolling stock companies were given a licence to print money?

Mr. Gray: indicated dissent.

Mr. Stevenson: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. When the Angel leasing company was sold off, Nomura bank of Japan made a windfall profit of £750 million without lifting a finger. The report challenges the House and the Government to decide whether there is a legitimate public interest when public resources are milked away like that, producing no beneficial effect on the economic, social and environmental objectives in which our railways can play such a big part.
I am delighted that the report concludes that we can no longer tolerate the rolling stock companies being completely unregulated. Public interest demands that such


activity be brought within the confines of positive and effective regulation so that we may see exactly what is happening. That is one example of how the public interest—which was our overriding consideration when we addressed these factors—would be well served by the Government.
I listened with interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who said that the strategic rail authority should not become a great amorphous body that is involved with the 6.30 train travelling from point A to point B. People will travel not on the strategic rail authority but on the 6.30 train from point A to point B. However, the strategic rail authority should have legitimate concerns about what is happening.
We cannot continue to tolerate the present situation: an individual turns up at a railway station and finds that the train to Euston is not running; he is told that the next train is scheduled to leave in an hour but, when he tries to book on that train, he is informed that there is no guarantee that it will run either; the individual then asks, "Well, what do you advise?", and a representative of the privatised rail company at the railway station tells him, "Our advice, sir, is not to travel by train."
Must we continue to tolerate a situation whereby an individual turns up at a railway station and sees a notice saying, "We are issuing tickets only for travel today"? What happens if that person wishes to travel tomorrow? When we ask about such matters, we receive no explanation. Is that serving the public interest? I guarantee that the information I have offered to the House is correct, because I was that individual.
The report is positive and forward-looking. It does not go over the entrails of the chaos created by the previous Government. We know all about that. I look forward to the day—in the not too distant future—when this Government, of whom I am so proud, enact the majority, if not all, of this report's recommendations.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I begin by congratulating the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on choosing this subject for its first report. The Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues have made it clear that they intend to give transport a high profile in this Parliament. Therefore, it is right to address the issue at an early stage.
The Select Committee has made it clear that it intends to follow the debate closely. Under the wise stewardship of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), it will clearly be a robust debate. The hon. Lady has clear views about the type of transport system that she wants to see. With great respect to her, I think that the language she employed today is a lot stronger than that used in the report. The tone of the speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) was also much stronger than that of the report.
I sense that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich may have wished for a more robust report. Her approach differs from my own, but at least we share the same objective. We want to achieve a satisfactory solution, although we differ about the means of securing that solution. From a reading of the Government's evidence, it is apparent that the hon. Lady's approach may be

stronger than that of the Government. That will create difficulties for the hon. Lady and the Government, as I believe that they are on the same side.

Mrs. Dunwoody: So they tell me.

Mr. Ottaway: The report's central premise is that it welcomes the Government's proposals for a strategic rail authority. The Government have produced no firm proposals in that regard, but the nature of the report is immediately clear when it states that the SRA should be responsible for
strategic planning, co-ordinating and supervising the activities of the rail industry".
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich put her own interpretation on that statement—indeed, I believe that the statement is open to interpretation, and I suspect that the Government may interpret it slightly differently when they draw up their plans.
The report rightly does not recommend a strategic transport authority at this stage. I will go further and say that I hope that it does not recommend a strategic transport authority at any stage. I believe that the Government are the strategic transport authority: they have the powers, the funds—and, I hope, the vision—to embrace all community issues.
It is interesting to note that the report does not criticise the principle of rail privatisation. That is not surprising when one considers the effective role of Conservative Members on the Committee, including my hon. Friends the Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Gray) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). The report is full of constructive criticism, but it accepts the overall privatisation principle. I am delighted that, in its recommendations, the report states:
The purpose of the Strategic Rail Authority should be to … foster a climate that encourages private investment in the railway".
That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar but not mentioned by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. The conclusion is welcomed by Committee members, some of whom, I confess, I thought felt differently.

Mr. Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather curious that the tones of old Labour have reverberated around the Chamber this morning more strongly than they resound in the report? The same applies to press coverage of the report last week. For example, a headline in The Times said, "Greater state control of rail urged by MPs". Does my hon. Friend agree that the report proposes a modest administrative change and in no sense attacks the principle of privatisation?

Mr. Ottaway: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stevenson: If that is your story, stick to it.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman implies that he does not agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the report is fairly balanced and that the Government will probably be rather pleased by its tone, which differs from the personal inclinations of some Committee members.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the goal of a Select Committee is to reach a consensus?


I know that it will come as a shock to the hon. Gentleman to learn that I hold different views from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). He is a most remarkable Member of Parliament, but not one with whom I agree on every point regarding the political development of this country. That means that the report will not reflect all my beliefs; nor will it reflect everything that the hon. Gentleman believes. Its tone is consensual and its strength comes from that very quality.

Mr. Ottaway: I am obliged to the hon. Lady. She confirms my suspicions that the report is welcomed neither by her side nor by my side of the Committee—although it will probably be welcomed by the Government.

Mrs. Dunwoody: That is not true.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Lady has just said that she does not believe in much of the report. I am sure that the whole House—and, indeed the whole country—has heard her words.
In reaching its conclusions, I have no doubt that the Committee was influenced by the evidence given by the passenger transport executive organisations, which were no particular friends of the previous Government but which are inclined not to condemn the policy. It is very early days in the privatisation of the railways and, although there is much justified criticism at present, I believe that it is wrong to take a snapshot of the railways as they stand in March 1998 and say that privatisation has failed. I do not think that privatisation will fail.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when he will confirm that there is a problem?

Mr. Ottaway: I shall turn to that issue in a moment. Frankly, I think that the real effect of privatisation will not be felt for three, four or five years. When some of the investment comes on stream, I believe that the hon. Gentleman will defend railway privatisation like a good Tory. There will be a marked change of attitude in a couple of years.
I have a great deal of faith in franchisees' ability to improve services, and such improvements will result largely from the economic freedom achieved by privatisation. Privatisations over the past 50 years have all struggled initially. One of the first privatisations, that of British Telecom, was unpopular and passionately opposed by the Labour party. Newspapers and Labour Members gleefully reported on the number of telephone kiosks that were not working. The criticism was similar in style to that which is being heaped on the railways. People were right to criticise BT then, and they are right to criticise the railways now. However, no one in their right mind would say that privatisation of BT was a mistake. The

company is a world beater of which Great Britain can rightly be proud. In four or five years, that will be the case with the railways.

Mr. Donohoe: rose—

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: rose—

Mr. Ottaway: I give way to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South.

Mr. Donohoe: Why did a previous Chairman of the Select Committee call railway privatisation a poll tax on wheels?

Mr. Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with those—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) should answer the first intervention before he deals with a second. He cannot take two at a time.

Mr. Ottaway: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was dealing with them as a job lot.
I do not agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South about railway privatisation being a poll tax on wheels. It will come right in the long term. He has fallen into the trap of thinking that the position today will continue in perpetuity, and that railway privatisation has therefore failed.

Mr. Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with franchisees who argue that franchise periods are too short to make the necessary investment and that the Conservative Government got it wrong?

Mr. Ottaway: I shall come to that point in a moment.

Dr. Whitehead: Is not rail privatisation structurally different from other privatisations because the market relationship between carriage and track charges clearly acts against social policies, such as carrying more freight by rail? Labour Members have suggested that the structural institutionalisation of the possible failure of the system is a problem.

Mr. Ottaway: I think that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but freight is a success story of privatisation.
BT is a world-beating company that we can be proud of, and in the long term we shall be proud of Railtrack, which is involved in discussions about the channel tunnel rail link, is a possible bidder for London Underground and announced today a £17 billion package which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich churlishly did not to welcome. The strength of the company in the private sector justifies the privatisation. The old, nationalised British Railways Board would not have been able to match Railtrack's investment and its involvement in the channel tunnel rail link and London Underground.
We all know that the west coast main line is hugely unreliable, but Virgin proposes a £1 billion order for 130 tilting trains that will knock 90 minutes off the


journey time from London to Glasgow and reduce the trip to Birmingham to 75 minutes. Labour Members should be patient: just as BT became effective, we will have effective railways in three or four years' time when the investment has been made.
I am the first to admit that, 18 months after the completion of privatisation, there are problems, some of which are becoming clearer. There is an important distinction between current railway operations and long-term investment plans. In the short term, the passenger service is everything. My constituency contains 11 commuter stations in the Connex South Central area. I watch developments closely; after an excellent start and increased services, the service has become unreliable and unacceptable. Trains do not have enough carriages, and conditions are squalid at peak times; but trains are becoming victims of their own success. Passenger numbers are increasing, and the forecast is that they will continue to rise.
The Deputy Prime Minister believes that that is largely explained by the well-established link between rail use and economic growth. However, it cannot wholly be explained by that link, and, not surprisingly, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising took a different view and expected passenger growth of 24 per cent. over the next five or six years. I share that view, because improvements brought about by rail privatisation—better stations, improved services and falling fares in real terms—will make a heck of a difference to public attitudes, and will go a long way to achieving the strategic objectives of both the previous and the current Government.
There is a problem with continuity of investment as the end of the franchise periods approaches, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe) said. A weakness of the franchise system is that the Government of the day were so nervous that they took a number of precautions to deal with any failures, but the system is short on mechanisms to cope with success and a large growth in demand.
Although under no obligation to do so under the terms of the franchise, Great North Eastern Railways wants to improve its rolling stock, which is not old, but unexpected passenger growth is causing serious problems. As the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said, short franchise periods make it difficult to fund further investment.
I am pleased that the Select Committee has strongly recommended that the strategic rail authority should have the power to offer guarantees to existing franchisees who propose to invest in new rolling stock, and that subsequent franchisees should be required to take over the lease for such stock. The tone of the recommendation is a little heavy, but the SRA should address the issue and I am pleased that it is a priority.
An interesting passage of the report deals with freight, which is an unambiguous success story of privatisation. The report does not quarrel with that. The nation's main freight mover is English, Welsh and Scottish Railways, which has about 90 per cent. of the market. EWS reports a 30 per cent. increase in freight train miles in the past 18 months.
The Select Committee suggests that the SRA should consider how to increase freight carrying, but companies seem to be doing well without the SRA intervening. The Minister appears restless. How much time does he need to make his winding-up speech?

The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): I need 15 minutes.

Mr. Ottaway: I shall conclude my remarks.
Although Conservative Members have reservations about the report, we have no difficulties with the thrust of it. Such a complex privatisation needs constant fine tuning. The previous Government would have concluded that a strategic rail authority was necessary during this Parliament. However, I urge the Government to adopt the lighter touch proposed in their evidence to the Select Committee, given that a strategic rail authority, not an executive rail authority, has been proposed.

The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and her fellow Select Committee members on their thorough and wide-ranging report on the Government's proposals for a new rail authority and railway regulation.
The Government welcome the report, and we shall consider its recommendations carefully when finalising our plans for the railways, which will be published in a few months.
The Committee's report is timely: it is almost exactly a year since rail privatisation was completed. In that year, the industry and its customers had to try to come to terms with the massive upheaval that was imposed on them by the fragmentation of the network. During that time, the shortcomings of privatisation have become all too obvious. Many passengers are not getting the service improvements that were promised by the previous Government. In that year, a few people have made fortunes from the railways, but many passengers have been short-changed.

Mr. Graham Stringer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed acquisition of Great Western by First Group is an example of the rail privatisation leading to the creation of millionaires at the expense of the travelling public? The privatised railways are in danger of creating more millionaires than the lottery. Does he further agree that the franchising director should not let that acquisition go ahead until there has been proper consultation and proper equity among the franchisers? He should not use his position improperly to pass on some of the benefits to a franchise that is not involved in the takeover.

Dr. Strang: I agree with my hon. Friend that huge and unjustified private profits have been made from the resale of assets. The case that my hon. Friend cites looks like another example of that. He asks about the franchising director. Because of the shortage of time I shall not reply to that now, but shall write to my hon. Friend.
The Committee's report highlights well the shortcomings that we inherited from the previous Administration. We saw those problems coming, and that


was why in opposition we consistently opposed rail privatisation. When we came to power in May we found a railway system that had been broken into a hundred pieces, and no strategic vision for the development of the network. Even the industry regulators acknowledge that the regulatory structure can be confusing. The railways were crying out for some leadership and direction.
Everybody acknowledges that the challenges facing the rail industry cannot be solved overnight. However, the Government have made clear their intentions. We aim to put the railways at the heart of a truly integrated transport policy; to win more passengers and freight to rail and, above all, to make sure that the railways are run in the public interest. That is why we are taking a long, hard look at the present regulatory structure, and why we have taken action within it where we can.
The House will recall that on 6 November I announced the first fruits of our review of railway regulation. We issued the franchising director with new objectives that deal with the issues that matter most to passengers—investment in decent rolling stock and stations, high standards of punctuality and reliability and the protection of passenger rights. We approved the franchising director's new planning criteria to provide an effective framework for developing and implementing worthwhile rail investment that will improve the range and quality of the services for rail users. We also agreed a voluntary concordat between Ministers and the Rail Regulator to give the regulator a clear sign of what the Government want for the railways.
We have also taken action on rail freight. We have revitalised the freight grants scheme and have increased its budget to encourage more rail freight. We have also secured commitments from the French Government and Eurotunnel that are designed to get a better deal for rail freight through the channel tunnel and beyond, not only by English, Welsh and Scottish Railways but by potential new entrants to the market.
Our measures on passenger and freight operations have been widely welcomed. Some train operators have played their part by taking steps to improve their services to passengers, but the overall picture is still unsatisfactory and there is much more to do. As the Committee's report states, the recent bulletin from the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising on the performance of the train operating companies in 1997–98 shows that punctuality and reliability on about half of the route groups surveyed were worse than in the preceding 12 months. The comments by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) reflect that deterioration.
I shall now turn to the centrepiece of our proposals—the new rail authority. Our manifesto contained a commitment to create a new rail authority to provide a clear, coherent and strategic programme for the railways, so that passengers' expectations could be met. I am pleased to note the Committee's endorsement of that proposal and of our aim for more effective and accountable railway regulation. The Committee made some detailed recommendations about the authority's functions. Of course, we shall carefully consider those recommendations in drawing up the new authority's detailed functions.
It may be helpful to hon. Members if I outline the general areas in which we expect the new authority to operate. We said in our manifesto that the new authority would combine the functions of the franchising director and some functions of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We do not necessarily regard those functions as the limitation of the new rail authority's remit. The likely areas of responsibility for the new authority, many of which are referred to in the Committee's report, will include managing and enforcing existing franchise contracts; developing a strategic vision for investment in the network; promoting integration between rail and other modes of transport; promoting voluntary action by train operators to win passengers; protecting the needs of disabled passengers; and balancing the needs of passengers and freight users.
In addition to those likely functions, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister stated in his oral evidence to the Committee that we shall also consider how consumers might be represented on the new authority. We envisage that the new authority will play an important role in encouraging more freight on to the railways.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Dr. Strang: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but should like to make progress.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister will look carefully at the role of customer services, will he not, because at the moment passengers are not being well served? That is an important matter.

Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, but in the few minutes that are left I should like to comment on safety, which some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) emphasised.
The Committee's recommendation that transport safety regulation, should be focused on a single, entirely independent authority goes wider than railways. It would be a significant change in present arrangements for transport safety regulation, and would raise some complex issues. The United Kingdom's transport safety record is relatively good, and we would need to ensure that any new body would be more effective than current arrangements.
In terms of the railways, the Committee drew attention to mark 1 rolling stock and the installation of a train protection system. It recommended that Railtrack should be relieved of its role in safety regulation and that its safety and standards directorate should be transferred to an independent safety authority. The railway inspectorate's last annual report revealed that some operators have tried to reduce safety levels to the minimum that is allowed, saying that maintaining or improving on the status quo is too costly.
The Government are determined that no privatised railway company will be able to put private profit before public safety. I have already made it clear to the House that we look to the independent Health and Safety Commission as the safety regulator to ensure that standards are maintained and, where necessary, improved.
In the context of train protection and mark 1 rolling stock, I have written to the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission to make it clear that he should produce any formal proposals that he considers necessary, and I understand that Health and Safety Executive officials are working on such proposals.
The current arrangements for the present division of safety responsibilities were proposed by the Health and Safety Commission. Accordingly, we shall need to consult it before responding to the Committee's recommendations. When the commission proposed those arrangements, it said that in due course a full review should be carried out of the arrangements for setting and promulgating railway standards. I have asked the chairman of the commission to bring forward that review and to consider as part of it the extent to which Railtrack's current role in enforcing standards as well as in setting and promulgating them might be transferred. I am pleased to announce that the chairman of the commission has agreed and has said that the review will begin immediately.
The debate has been constructive. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich was characteristically forthright in introducing the debate, and lucidly set out the issues. In the time available to me, it has not been possible to cover all the Committee's detailed recommendations. However, it is already plain from the Committee's report and from representations that we have received that our proposal for a new rail authority has widespread support. It was striking that even the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon, South, said rather lamely that, if the Conservatives had been elected to government, they would have proposed such a rail authority.
Passengers want the railways regulated in a way that is firm, fair and accountable. They should have a public service ethos, should not be driven solely by the profit motive and should be fit for the 21st century. Our proposals are a major step in the right direction and will help to create a climate in which the railways can flourish as part of an integrated transport system.

Adhesive Arachnoiditis

Mr. Tim Collins: Last September, I visited a constituent of mine, Mrs. Spence, who lives in Kendal at the heart of my constituency, at her request. When I saw her, I found a lady in constant pain and completely bed-ridden, apart from access occasionally to a wheelchair, whose life had been ruined by the pain she suffers 24 hours a day. That was not always the case. In her younger years, she was a tennis player and ballroom dancer, and even marched on trade union marches when she lived in London. Today, her entire life has been ruined by the condition that is known as adhesive arachnoiditis.
In describing the condition to me, Mrs. Spence said, "It is like having a hot poker placed in your spine and spreading all over your body. It is like having a group of worms in your legs and feeling that they are wriggling around inside." She constantly feels that she has to punch her legs to try to stop the pain.
Mrs. Spence's husband, Brian, who has been a support to her throughout her life, sits up night after night looking after her, trying to control her pain and to help her. She is on constant medication. That includes a course of morphine tablets, but she has also been given liquid morphine; she often has to take it in liquid form when the pain breaks through the barrier of the tablets. She cannot put her feet on the floor without experiencing extreme discomfort. In 1980, she was told that, unless she used a wheelchair, she would be unlikely ever to leave her home again.
All that appears to stem from two occasions—one in 1971 and the other in 1973—when Mrs. Spence was injected in her spine with a chemical called Myodil. It is worth pausing to reflect on the purpose of the chemical. It is a radiopaque dye that is used when people have X-rays of their spines to enable all the substances within the spinal column to be shown more clearly on the X-ray. When she was given the chemical, she was placed on a table, injected and upended so that it sloshed up and down her spinal column. It appears that the chemical is a very sticky substance, and it bound together many of the nerve endings in the back of her spine. The consequence is constant discomfort and agony.
Mrs. Spence is not alone. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) for drawing to my attention the case of his constituent, Mr. Peter Crawford, who is also confined to a wheelchair and suffers continuous pain requiring 24-hour care. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has told me of similar instances in his constituency. I believe that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have constituents who suffer from the condition.
In September, the Minister of State, Department of Health, Baroness Jay, wrote a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in which she described adhesive arachnoiditis as "a rather uncommon … condition". To some extent, I wish that that was true, but none of us knows.
I tabled a parliamentary question, which received an answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Health. I asked
how many cases of adhesive arachnoiditis have been diagnosed in the last 20 years".
The reply was:
The information requested is not available"—[Official Report, 12 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 152.]
That was largely because adhesive arachnoiditis is not a notifiable disease. It is not infectious, and statistics are not kept, so, sadly, none of us knows how extensive the condition is. However, there are some world experts in the sector.
One in particular is Dr. Charles Burton, the senior medical director of the department of neuroaugmentive surgery in Minnesota, a department which he founded. He is a distinguished person. Among other things, he served as a panel chairman of the United States Food and Drug Administration and was a founder of the North American Spine Society. He is probably the world's leading expert on this condition.
Recently, Dr. Burton wrote a paper, in which he says:
Despite the availability of a wealth of published scientific information on the subject, it has not been well appreciated by the medical profession that the advanced forms of arachnoiditis may be associated with incapacitating pain, disability, or even death. In addition, the global incidence of severe arachnoiditis has only recently become more evident owing to the formation of patient self-help groups in the United States, England, and Australia. These organizations have shown that arachnoiditis represents a worldwide public health problem of considerable magnitude.
He has said that the condition is as
bad as terminal cancer without the prospect of death to end the suffering.
The difficulty is that there is a history to that use of the chemical and its side effects. I have an article that appeared in January 1954 in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, which was the official publication of the American Orthopaedic Association and the British Orthopaedic Association, and was printed both in Boston and London. The article is entitled "Arachnoiditis following the use of iodized oil." It starts:
It is the purpose of this paper to present clinical and experimental data which suggested to us that pantopaque"—
the material that I am talking about—
and other iodized materials may contribute to severe and disabling arachnoiditis.
An article in The Lancet as long ago as 1956 indicated similar problems relating to the chemical.
It is worth noting also that Dr. Burton points out in his paper:
In Sweden and a number of other countries throughout the world (including the former Soviet Union) … on the basis of animal studies or clinical observation",
these substances were
removed from clinical practice … as early as 1948",
yet in this country Myodil was used as standard practice for many decades: from the 1940s to the 1980s. Indeed, Myodil was never refused a product licence of right under the Medicines Act 1968. It was always granted those

licences every five years until the late 1980s, when its manufacturer, Glaxo Wellcome, decided for its own reasons to withdraw the product from use.
The difficulty is that Myodil is an extremely unpleasant substance. Glaxo Wellcome issued guidance on its use about 20 years ago, which said that it should not be injected with anything other than a glass syringe because it would melt the rubber or plastic of any other type of syringe. There is evidence of the chemical being spilled on to a laboratory floor and melting the tiles, yet, in this country, the chemical was regularly injected into the spinal column of people as a normal and accepted part of medical practice. That was against a pattern of well-known scientific research throughout the world showing that there were problems with it.
I am delighted to note that, last month, Baroness Jay, who I believe is responsible for these matters in another place, wrote to Mrs. Ursula Coxhead of the Myodil Action Group:
The Department of Health does recognise the association between the use of Myodil in myelography and the development of arachnoiditis in some patients.
That is a very important statement, because it has taken a long time for the Government—whether Conservative or Labour—to accept any link between the two. She adds:
Warnings about the possibility of post-myelography arachnoiditis were included in the product information for Myodil many years ago.
That may be true, but those warnings consisted largely of exhortations to medical practitioners to remove the chemical immediately after it had been injected. In many cases—certainly in that of Mrs. Spence—that was not done, but, even where the chemical was removed in some cases, the evidence is that it was not possible to remove it all and that it did sustained and long-term damage.
That is why I and many sufferers of the condition have called for an inquiry. It is clear that there is prima facie evidence of, at best, something dramatically wrong and, at worst, serious and consistent malpractice. It is also clear that there is a division in medical opinion, which the Minister may mention in her reply. I accept that there is not yet a medical consensus on the causes of the condition or its linkage with Myodil, although it is strongly felt by some leading global experts, and the evidence appears to be accumulating.
I was disappointed when the Minister replied to my written question of 5 November last year:
We have no plans to institute an inquiry into this issue."—[Official Report, 12 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 596]
I hope that she will reconsider.
I pay tribute to a Newcastle newspaper that does not cover much of my constituency, but is significant in the north—The Journal—which has been running a sustained campaign on the issue. Let me quote briefly from an editorial last month which sets out the case very clearly. It states:
This is not a small claim for a minor injury. Myodil has ruined lives. It is a case which must come to court, not only to fix compensation for sufferers, but also to throw some light on what happened when Myodil was being used.
This will have to emerge in the courtroom because of the Government's steadfast refusal to hold an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the drug's use.
This obstructive attitude is unforgivable. Those people enduring the daily agony from the Myodil treatment at least deserve to feel that lessons might be learned from what went wrong. Such an


inquiry might also result in information about the extent of the problem. Health ministers admit they have no idea how many people are suffering from the problem they refuse to investigate.
Let me stress that it is not a partisan issue and that the current Government are taking exactly the same stance as their predecessors. In that respect, they are no worse—or better—than the previous Government. However, some of those concerned about the issue find it sad that, in opposition, the Government took a rather different view. In a press release issued in February 1993, under the heading "Blunkett calls for emergency action on arachnoiditis" the shadow Health Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, referred to
needless tragedy" and
the damage caused to innocent people's health
and the need for
a clear statement of precisely what action has been taken".
He called for specific steps, including:
No-fault compensation should be paid … A full enquiry should be established … All invasive procedures carried out in the course of spinal treatment should be immediately replaced with safer practices such as Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
That is what the then shadow Health Secretary, now a member of the Cabinet, called for in opposition. That is what those suffering from the condition seek from the Government today.
We are considering a chilling chain of incidents. There is scientific evidence, published as long ago as the 1950s, that the chemical has devastating side effects. There is also evidence of concealment within the medical profession. My constituent tells me that in 1994 she obtained medical notes dating as far back as 1973 which demonstrated that two separate doctors and a neurosurgeon diagnosed her as suffering from adhesive arachnoiditis, but she was not told until she obtained those notes that she was suffering from anything other than a variation of arthritis of the spine.
There is evidence that Myodil was a nasty chemical and that a very large and wealthy company has taken a hostile attitude. It takes the view that, as anybody needing a myelography had a back problem, all subsequent problems must have stemmed from that. There is also evidence that, sadly, successive Governments followed the advice of their officials that it would be too difficult to have an inquiry and get to the root of the problem.
I am sure that the Minister will have looked into the matter and that she has in front of her an elegant speech drafted by her hard-working officials—no doubt the same officials who advised previous Governments. After she has read her speech, I ask her not to dismiss the issue from her mind, but to search her heart and consider whether the impulse for justice that brought her and hon. Members representing all parties to the House, and which is the purpose and function of this place, would be best served by having an open, full and public inquiry to establish the medical facts, who knew what when and where blame lies and to address the issue of compensation for people whose lives have been blighted beyond belief. They will never recover, but they may be able to have a little more comfort in their dying years if they receive some compensation.

The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on introducing

the debate, on the elegance and eloquence of his speech, and on the care with which he is representing his constituent's interest in the matter.
Let me also make it clear to the House that my brother holds a senior position on the board of Glaxo Wellcome. In the context of my ministerial duties, I do not participate in discussions concerning the pharmaceutical industry. I raised the question of my having any conflict of interest in replying to today's debate with the permanent secretary, who feels there is no conflict of interest, and I have written to the hon. Gentleman accordingly.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that arachnoiditis is not a party issue. Members on both sides of the House have constituents who are raising precisely the same concerns as he has raised today on behalf of Mrs. Spence. Many such people afflicted with awful and chronic illness turn their own adversity to the advantage of others by highlighting through their circumstances the broader lessons to be learned. We pay tribute to their efforts.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have listened very carefully to the points that he has raised. Let me begin by putting the issue of the treatment of people who suffer from arachnoiditis into its broader context by setting out the Government's proposals for developing, strengthening and rebuilding our national health service that were clearly set out in the White Paper "The new national health service—modern and dependable" which made clear our concern to develop proper support and services for people who suffer long-term, life-limiting conditions and disabilities such as arachnoiditis.
Many people suffer from conditions that will never be completely cured. Therefore, it is important for the health service to ensure that they are properly supported. We shall focus on recuperation and rehabilitation, recognising that the management of chronic pain and other palliative care is an important part of enabling people with such conditions to live as independently and actively as possible. The Government will expect co-operation, not competition, in the planning and delivery of health and social care at local level.
As the hon. Gentleman made clear, co-operation will be crucial in providing the right support for people suffering from conditions such as arachnoiditis. I hope that he accepts that all the action that the Government are taking following the publication of the White Paper and the public health Green Paper make clear our determination to rebuild public confidence in the national health service as a public service accountable to patients, open to the public and shaped by their views and experiences.
It may help if I briefly summarise the issues that the disease raises for the Government. The hon. Gentleman has made very clear the extent to which arachnoiditis is an uncommon and distressing condition, characterised by chronic inflammation and thickening of the arachnoid membrane. That membrane apparently looks like a spider's web—hence its name. It covers and protects the brain and the spinal cord.
It is particularly distressing that arachnoiditis may be a subsequent complication of an earlier injury. It is a progressive condition, for which there is no known cure. It traps nerves as they leave the spinal cord, and at the lower end of the spinal canal; it may cause a great deal of low back, neck and leg pain—and in some cases, this becomes a neurological disability.
The sad fact is that a mercifully small number of people are seriously affected by arachnoiditis. We know, as the hon. Gentleman stressed in the case of Mrs. Spence—other hon. Members will testify to the experience of other constituents—that the pain from this condition can cause misery for the individual concerned and for his or her family.
The White Paper sets out our approach to service development in the context of evidence-based service frameworks which will focus much more strongly on the quality of care. That was often neglected by the previous Administration under the internal market. The election of a Labour Government, with our commitment to rebuilding a national health service, marks an important move away from focusing solely on quantity of treatment and towards a much greater preoccupation at every stage with the quality of treatment. Pain management is developing across the country and is supported by an increasing commitment by the professions to evidence-based pain services. Quality is absolutely integral to the effectiveness of those services. I hope that that will be good news for patients.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will actively contribute to the development of services across the NHS by co-ordinating programmes to improve clinical standards, by issuing guidance on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of clinical practice, and by supporting clinical audit development work, making sure that quality is measured at every stage of the process.
Effective pain relief, a key component of high-quality care for people with arachnoiditis, will be one of the topics that may in due course form part of the national institute's work. Attention has recently focused on the Audit Commission's report "Anaesthesia Under Examination", which highlighted the need for commissioners and trusts to obtain better data about clinical activity and service standards, so that resources can be matched more closely to need. The Audit Commission has made a number of extremely sensible recommendations for improving the efficiency of pain clinics—recommendations which I am sure managers and professionals throughout the NHS will take on board, because they are evidently of benefit to patients.
As I said, arachnoiditis is caused by injury to the arachnoid membrane. That may result from many causes, such as infection, haemorrhage, trauma, surgery, and the diagnostic procedure known as myelography. Patients with arachnoiditis may have more than one predisposing cause.
Myelography, the cause with which the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned, is an X-ray of the spinal cord cavity involving a lumbar puncture to inject the contrast agent or dye used into the subarachnoid space. The contrast agent or dye may then be visualised by X-ray. Myelography is used to diagnose serious conditions such as spinal cancer or a prolapsed disc. It is not a procedure used on patients who are otherwise fit and healthy. As with many difficult clinical decisions, the risks of not being able to diagnose what may be a life-threatening illness have to be set against the risks involved in the procedure itself. It is never a clinical decision to be undertaken lightly; it is undertaken only after careful consideration of all the factors involved.
As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, no clinical intervention is completely free of risk. That is why we look to doctors to use their knowledge, skill and experience to weigh carefully the likely benefits of any procedure, such as an X-ray investigation, against the anticipated risks for the patient. It is also why we support doctors' efforts to maintain those skills. There should also be discussion with patients so that they are aware of any risks that may accompany the treatment.

Mr. Collins: Of course the Minister is right to say that we must place our trust in the medical profession; equally, that profession is subject to public accountability. Will she deal with the case for a public inquiry, which her party supported when in opposition? Now that it is in government, does her party still support the idea?

Ms Jowell: I shall be coming to the case that the hon. Gentleman made for a public inquiry.
In the past, Myodil was linked to the development of post-myelography arachnoiditis in some patients, especially when there were technical difficulties in carrying out the X-ray procedure. Myodil was withdrawn by Glaxo from the market in late 1987 for commercial reasons. Arachnoiditis was a known, if rare, side-effect of Myodil, and the appropriate warnings were given in the product information, with the advice to remove as much of it as possible after the X-ray procedure. The number of patients who suffered from that complication is unfortunately not known.
Myodil is an old product which was available before licensing procedures were in place in the UK. Following the thalidomide tragedy, the Medicines Act 1968 was introduced, and implemented in 1971. Products already available on the market were given a product licence of right and were systematically reviewed by the Committee on Safety of Medicines for safety, quality and efficacy. Myodil was reviewed under those procedures, and a reviewed licence was given early in 1987. It was therefore handled under the normal procedures for the licensing of medicines.
Things have moved on; patients today are much more involved in discussions and subsequent decisions about their care. Like any medicinal products, the contrast dyes used in myelograms come with product information supplied by the manufacturer. All medicinal products are subject to stringent assessment of safety, quality and efficacy before being licensed, and are closely monitored after licensing to detect any previously unrecognised adverse effects or any change in the balance of risks and benefits. This post-marketing assessment of drug safety is known as pharmacovigilance.
Things have also moved on in the area of diagnoses. Today, many patients who require diagnostic procedures of this nature have to undergo a non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging scan instead of myelography. But not all patients are suitable for MRI scanning, so myelography is still an important procedure. For such patients, newer, water-soluble dyes are available and are less likely to be associated with arachnoiditis.
On the hon. Gentleman's call for an inquiry, I reiterate the parliamentary answer that I supplied some months ago: we have no plans to hold an inquiry, and I hope that he understands that it would not be proper for me to comment on matters that may yet become the subject of


legal proceedings. I have, however, asked officials to set up a meeting with the Myodil Action Group. Baroness Jay, who has ministerial responsibility for this matter, has agreed to chair the meeting.
I hope that, having raised this issue in the context of concern for his constituents, the hon. Gentleman accepts the responses that I have given to his questions.

Rookery Footpath, Barrow-on-Soar

Mr. Andrew Reed: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the Rookery footpath in Barrow-on-Soar in my constituency. Once in a generation, a Member of Parliament makes a great speech. Unfortunately, this morning is not the time for that great speech in my parliamentary career. Many issues that arise in our constituencies daily are just as important to local residents as the big issues that we discuss here, and I am humbled to follow the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), which dealt with a very important issue.
Hon. Members are driven into politics to discuss the big issues, to sort out major problems and to represent our constituents nationally, but every now and then a small event occurs which dominates one's postbag. This year, instead of receiving Christmas cards from the vast majority of my constituents, my postbag was inundated with 150 letters from the residents of Barrow-on-Soar about the temporary closure of the Rookery footpath in Leicestershire.
The footpath was supposed to be closed for six months, but it became clear from my discussions with local residents, the parish council, the county council and Railtrack that this was a saga: the temporary closure has lasted 12 years. On finding that a footpath is unsafe, the traffic authority—in this case, Leicestershire county council—can take out a temporary closure order under section 14(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended. Whenever such issues arise, hon. Members find themselves looking up pieces of legislation of which we were previously unaware. That Act was never high on my reading list, but since Christmas I have become increasingly aware of its effects.
I wish to explain what has happened in the case of the Rookery footpath. The action that I have taken so far has generated much local interest, and I am sure that it will lead to the footpath being reopened by the end of the year. I hope that this case will serve as a lesson throughout the country. Temporary closure orders that last 12 years or more are unacceptable, and I hope that we can ensure that they are not automatically renewed, as happens currently. When the county council asks for an extension of the temporary closure order later this year, I hope that a condition will be put on the order that the path be reopened.
This issue has generated a great deal of local interest. I congratulate the local press and the work of my constituents, particularly Dr. Earl, a parish councillor who has taken on this issue single-handedly and been a constant pain and threat to the county council.
I wish to declare an interest. Before 1 May last year, I was employed in Leicestershire county council's department of planning and transportation. I dealt with issues that were far removed from this one, as I was in the economic development unit and had no dealings with footpaths, so I cannot be blamed for the fact that the footpath has been closed for the past 11 years. I declare an interest because I know of the hard work and sincerity of all the officers at Leicestershire county council in dealing with this matter since I took it up.
It is always easy for Members of Parliament to criticise public servants for lack of action. When I go through the catalogue of disasters, delays and prevarications, hon.


Members will see why some members of the public are right to wonder what has been happening over the past 12 years.
The Rookery footpath is important for a number of reasons. It is a cut-through from Humphrey Perkins school in Barrow-on-Soar to the village where I live, Quorn. It was used by a number of elderly residents, who remember it well, and unfortunately it is still being used by many pupils from the school.
The first order for closure was taken out in June 1986 because a wall adjoining the footpath was deemed unsafe—part of the granite was in danger of falling off, presenting a danger to individuals using the footpath. The footpath cuts through from Cotes road alongside a number of houses and crosses a busy and dangerous midland main line railway track. I use the line regularly, so I have been underneath the bridge and know that trains travel along that track at well over 90 miles an hour. It is important to reopen the footpath as soon as possible for the sake of the pupils and others who are still trying to use it. We all know the consequences of young children trying to cross railway tracks in front of fast-moving trains.
When the footpath was closed on 27 June 1986, it was unclear who owned the wall. Twelve years later, it is still unclear, which is why the footpath has remained closed. The first order was an emergency measure, which was supposed to last for just 14 days. Later that year, an order for a further three months was secured. I have a catalogue of the dates, from 1986 to January 1994, when further orders and the consent of the Secretary of State were secured. The Government office for the east midlands, as it is now known, became so used to extending the order that it did so without being asked. In 1995, the Secretary of State granted an extension to the order without the county council asking for it, so it seems to have become a piece of correspondence that went out regularly and automatically.
Unfortunately, on a couple of occasions the order lapsed by mistake, and the county council has admitted responsibility for that—a new order should have been made early in 1997. We now appear to be back up to date with the temporary closure orders and to be covered until July 1998. I hope that the Secretary of State will then find a way to ensure that work is carried out so that the path can be reopened within a reasonable time.

Mr. David Taylor: From what has been said so far, it is not clear to me whether the delays have been caused mainly by uncertainty about ownership, by a lack of funds for the repair of the boundary wall or by a lack of political will.

Mr. Reed: I was coming to that. Ultimately, the reason for the delay is the fact that the wall's ownership is in question; but the estimated cost of repairing the relevant part of the footpath is between £30,000 and £60,000. The county council—rightly, I suppose—does not want to be responsible for the repair of the wall and the reopening of the footpath at a possible cost of £60,000 if that proves to be the responsibility of some other body. Given the proximity of the footpath to the railway, it is felt that Railtrack and its former incarnation, British Rail's property arm, must bear some responsibility. The present

reason for the continued delay is the fact that the county council is taking advice in order to ascertain the ownership of the wall and hence to establish when the footpath can be reopened.
As I have pointed out to constituents who have written to me, even if the county council is shown to own the wall, local councillors will have to decide how to find the £60,000 that is needed for its repair—and rightly so. If I may put it crudely, £60,000 equates to two teachers, or two or three social workers. It must be recognised that the county council has responsibilities. It has a financial responsibility, but it has another responsibility as well.
I am aware of the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) in the right to roam and other issues relating to footpaths. I feel strongly that an issue here is the need to ensure that, where footpaths are provided, we make them available to the public. That applies particularly when public safety is involved, as it is in this instance. We rightly criticise farmers and others who cover and close footpaths, but in this case a democratically elected body—a county council—is doing that, entirely legally. I want to draw attention to the prevarication that seems to have taken place—although I am pleased to say that our actions are moving things forward.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to say that I have a direct interest in the matter. There is a similar problem in my, neighbouring, constituency. Has it ever been established, as a result of investigation, whether the repairs could be carried out as part of a community project? That happened in the village of Thringston when I was a district councillor. Admittedly it was a larger project, but it seemed to resolve what had become an impasse.

Mr. Reed: We have not conferred about that, but the answer is yes. Dr. Earl, one of the parish councillors, has suggested that option. The county solicitor has said that the estimated cost of the work—£60,000—is so high because it will be done by hand. I am not sure by what other method the council envisages the wall's repair, but in my constituency—and no doubt that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire—such repairs have been done before. Similar walls have been repaired in Birstall, where I was a councillor, under Government schemes.
I am sure that today's debate and the action taken by the county council in the last week and a half have produced light at the end of the tunnel. I am convinced that, because of Dr. Earl's work and that of the parish council—and, as I have said, my brief airing of the issue today—more has happened in the past three months than has happened in the past 12 years. I am grateful for that. I know that the county council and Railtrack are now negotiating, and I think that the footpath may be reopened as a result.
I hope, however, that the Minister will be able to say something about the legal aspects of temporary closure orders. An extension requires the consent of the Secretary of State, but there is no limit to the number of extensions for which he can provide. If an order is extended, the local authority need only advertise that. Given the position relating to the footpath—which I am sure is repeated throughout the country—we must ensure that, in future, temporary closure orders are not extended without question.
I hope that, by the time the Minister is able to respond—by producing legislation, or in other ways—the footpath will have been reopened; but I also hope, for the sake of future generations of footpath users, we have gone some way towards dispensing with a ridiculous anomaly.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) on securing the debate.
Leicestershire county council's temporary closure of the Rookery footpath is clearly an important local issue, and I share my hon. Friend's disappointment about the length of time for which it has been closed. However—as my hon. Friend may have realised from my reply to his recent parliamentary question—responsibility for the closure rests squarely on the shoulders of the county council, and the Government's ability to exert influence is limited.
The Secretary of State's role is restricted to considering requests by the county council to extend the life of temporary traffic regulation orders closing the footpath. Such an extension was last granted on 19 February 1996, with an expiry date of 31 July 1996. The county council did not apply for a further extension, and the order lapsed. I understand that the council made a fresh order in February 1997, which was subsequently discovered to be invalid and was replaced with yet another order in January this year. That order will expire in July if it is not extended by the Secretary of State.
In considering a request for extension of the expiry date, the Secretary of State will look for evidence that the views of local users have been taken into account by the authority, but in a case such as this, in which there is a danger to public safety, those views will inevitably be given less weight. Having said that, I must emphasise that the 52 letters received recently by the Government office for the east midlands postdated the Secretary of State's consideration of the council's latest request for an extension.
The retaining wall alongside the footpath has not collapsed during the many years for which the closure has been intermittently in force, but that does not mean that its condition is without risk to the public. If the county council and its engineers have concerns about the safety of the retaining wall, it is right for the Secretary of State to take serious account of them.
There have been complaints about a lack of consultation by the county council. The legislation does not require such consultation to take place—although, given such a prolonged and sensitive closure, the council might well have benefited from explaining its proposals better rather than relying on statutory public notices.
I assure my hon. Friend that extensions to temporary closure orders are never made by Government offices unless requests are made for them to do so. I also assure him that, should the council apply for an extension of the expiry date of the current order, the Secretary of State will take full account of the points that have been made today and in letters from residents. If the Secretary of State decided that an extension should not be granted, the council would be at liberty to introduce a fresh order, but would be obliged to wait for three months before doing so.
I note the calls for the Secretary of State to intervene or to require the holding of a public inquiry, but there is no provision for that in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended by the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991. I suspect that my hon. Friend already knows that.
I am alarmed to learn of the risk to children who continue to use the footpath by climbing on the outside of the footbridge over the railway, but I understand that the county council has recently installed more and improved fencing and barriers to prevent such use.
I am pleased to hear that the county council has reopened a section of the footpath north of the railway to enable better access to properties on Cotes road. However, I note that, as the footbridge remains closed, that will not provide schoolchildren with the short cut they want to the south side of the railway.
I share the concern of my hon. Friend and his constituents about the use of temporary orders to close a footpath intermittently for 12 years, but I am encouraged by the fact that the Government office for the east midlands is taking a robust line with the county council. When, in February 1996, the most recent extension of six months was granted, the Government office asked the county council to consider promoting a permanent order, as that would enable objections to be heard and a public inquiry to be held.
I am disappointed that the county council seems to have disregarded that advice, and I express my dissatisfaction at the time that it is taking to resolve the problem and reopen the footpath. It is difficult to see how the delay can be consistent with the general duty on rights-of-way authorities under the Highways Act 1980 to maintain a public right of passage.
I am particularly disappointed at the prolonged closure of the footpath, as it flies in the face of what we want to achieve through an integrated transport policy. The Government recognise the flexibility that the car can bring and the fact that, for many people, the car has become a necessity, but the forecast growth in traffic is clearly unacceptable because of its environmental and economic effects. Forecasts suggest that, unless we change our travel habits, traffic levels will be between 36 per cent. and 57 per cent. higher in 20 years' time than they are now.
It is conceivable that some parents in Barrow-on-Soar are taking their children to school in Quorn by car following the closure of the Rookery footpath. The reduction in our dependence on the car through providing genuine alternatives and promoting walking, for example, is central to our achieving a more sustainable transport system. Consequently, failures to minimise the time during which footpaths are out of service do nothing to help, and much to harm, our collective efforts to bring about the changes that are necessary if we are to modify people's travel habits—we must work hard at that.
We shall set out the national policy framework for integrated transport in the forthcoming White Paper on transport, but delivery will rest with local partnerships. We very much hope that, across the country, schemes will be dealt with rather more effectively than has been the case in the unfortunate example that my hon. Friend has described.
I understand that the county council has now received advice from leading counsel about liability for the repair works to the retaining wall alongside the footpath.
The council's solicitor is now acting on that advice to ascertain who is liable for the repairs to the wall. I understand that the council hopes to complete those legal inquiries within the next month, after which it will meet Railtrack and the British Rail Property Board to take matters forward. In the meantime, the council's engineers are considering what measures could be implemented to reopen the footpath.
I can only hope that the county council's optimism is rewarded and that a solution is found quickly to the impasse that has resulted in the closure of the Rookery footpath for such an unacceptably long time.

Water Industry

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I am delighted to have won the opportunity to debate the water industry in the House today. I thank the Minister for her presence, especially as she has just responded to the previous debate.
This is not the first time that the House has debated the industry. Indeed, I have over the years secured several Adjournment debates on the matter. However, this is the first time that I have been able to do so under a Labour Government, and I believe that the huge concern that the issue throws up justifies the use of the Minister's time.
This is a critical moment for water policy. Water pricing is undergoing its periodic review, and the Government are consulting on water abstraction licences and charging for water. Moreover, the BBC is in the middle of a specially themed water week, on which I congratulate it—I have been interested in the wide range of programmes that have been shown.
The water industry has changed beyond recognition since privatisation. This is not the moment to debate whether the industry should have been privatised—suffice it to say that the Liberal Democrats would not have taken it out of public hands. However, we must now look to the future, not the past.
There is no doubt that issues relating to the water industry are extremely emotive. Problems are all too apparent, and scarcely a day passes without a water story featuring prominently in the national press: fat cat pay-outs; water shortages; huge profits for the water companies; huge increases in bills; and environmental destruction as the search for new water increasingly drains rivers, lakes, wetlands and underground reserves. It is no wonder that people are worried and angry.
Profits across the industry have increased by some 130 per cent. since privatisation—they have more than doubled. Share prices and dividends to shareholders have, unsurprisingly, shot up as a result, despite supposedly tough regulation. To pay for that, water prices for domestic customers in England and Wales have increased on average by 39 per cent. in real terms—in other words, prices have risen by almost half.
In my constituency, and in the rest of the region served by South West Water, the price increase has been much greater—since privatisation, average water bills there have more than doubled. That is because people in the area have been forced to pay an unfair share of the costs of maintaining what is a natural resource. In the south-west, 3 per cent. of the national population are being asked to pay to clean up a third of the national coastline. Local pensioners who rely on the state pension are on average paying more than 10 per cent. of that meagre state pension on bills for which no help is available. Again, it is no wonder that people are angry.
Investment has increased since privatisation. There is no dispute about the fact that there has been necessary investment in water supplies and in environmental protection. However, whereas customers have borne much of the cost of investment, company shareholders have received most of the financial benefits. The Consumers Association concluded that more than 80 per cent. of the water companies' investment has been funded by


increases in domestic consumer bills. That is despite the fact that we were told that privatisation was intended to allow greater access to private funds through borrowing and investment. Indeed, it was argued that privatisation would prevent big increases in customer bills, but that has clearly not happened.
As customers rather than shareholders have taken on most of the costs, it is little wonder that share prices and dividends have rocketed. Only a monopoly could get away with dipping into customers' pockets in such a way; in any other industry, customers would have left in droves. Water customers do not have that choice.
Water companies do not have an entirely positive record on investment either, and I hope that my earlier comments do not suggest otherwise. Perhaps most infamously, Yorkshire Water cut investment in preventing leakages, and left customers without water. Despite increased profits, water companies have largely failed to secure sustainable future water resources, and have not invested adequately in water conservation and distribution. Many of Britain's rivers, lakes, reservoirs and underground reserves have run dry through over-abstraction, which has caused major environmental problems and put at risk some of our best wildlife sites.
All too often, water companies present us with what they claim to be a stark choice—they say that they can stop increasing water bills, but only by scaling back investment in environmental protection. That is far too simplistic, and the water companies have got away with using that argument for far too long.
The regulator has struggled to get a hold on these slippery creatures; they have squealed against tough price regimes, but any so-called tough pricing formulas that have been agreed have led to further share and profit rises. Generally, as soon as the settlements have been announced, the share price has shot up, as the market has recognised that they are not tough at all.
The current review of water company prices will provide a key test. There is a danger that the review will turn into a debate about price cuts versus the environment. However, the review cannot be only about putting money into customers' pockets. It must be about setting water prices—and, perhaps more crucially, water company profits and share prices—at a level that will allow us to make good the environmental damage caused by the water companies in the first place at a cost that customers can afford. The regulator must in future consider a much broader range of issues.
Polling released by the Environment Agency shows that water consumers want environmental improvement to be funded from efficiency gains, and not necessarily price reductions. In fact, 95 per cent. of customers polled would prefer to receive the same water bill if that delivered improved environmental protection.
The water companies and the regulator should take note of that poll, as I am sure that water companies can afford to do much more for the environment. The Government must either make it clear that the regulator has a duty to consider environmental standards as well as prices—which could be effected in the current review of utilities regulation—or tighten environmental standards and make them part of the context in which the regulator has to work. He argues consistently that it is not for him to set standards, but he must recognise the standards that have been set. Let us ensure that the House and Ministers set the standards correctly.
English Nature has identified 80 sites of special scientific interest that need urgent action to protect them from the devastating effects of abstraction and sewage effluent. Almost half have been proposed as internationally important sites. Without action now, damage will be permanent.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has released a list of what it believes are some of the most important of those sites, which I think it has made generally available. The sites range from the Yare broads and marshes in Norfolk to the River Avon in Hampshire and Wiltshire, where there is a decline in salmon stock, a general decline in the quality of the habitat and low flows, which are especially a problem on its tributaries. The list also includes Hewell park lake in Hereford and Worcester, highlighting serious concern about problems arising mainly from over-abstraction.
Other sites identified are the River Eden in Cumbria, Swanbourne lake in Arundel park in west Sussex, the River Kennet in Berkshire and Wiltshire, the River Wye in Gloucestershire, and the River Axe in Devon. The list is far too long to cite fully in the time available.
The status of an SSSI should in theory be enough to protect a site. The designation means that the Government have said that the site's preservation is vital to the UK's biodiversity. Indeed, the definition is that there should be no erosion of the sites—it is not that no erosion would be ideal, but that something less would be all right. In reality, though, an SSSI classification is simply not enough, as we know from the erosion that is taking place.
Worse still, in the most recent guidance to the water industry, the Environment Agency split the sites into two groups: core sites, which are of international importance and protected by European Union legislation—the so-called special areas of conservation—and non-core sites, which are protected by UK legislation. That division implies that the Office of Water Services and the water companies can give lower priority to protecting non-core sites. That split has never appeared in previous guidance, and is a backward step for environmental protection.
There is specific concern about the designation of SACs not being conterminous with SSSIs. I know from discussions with English Nature staff that, at one stage, it was suggested that all SSSIs should simply be nominated as SACs, but the previous Government were reluctant to allow that. In terms of protecting British biodiversity, there is no differentiation between the importance of sites.
The Minister must intervene to insist that money is spent to protect threatened sites. Thousands of millions of pounds are to be invested by the water companies in return for huge profits. The RSPB calculates that just £230 million more would be enough to protect all vital but threatened environments. That investment was always described as necessary—until the new guidelines came out. I hope that the Minister will find a way of getting the Environment Agency to withdraw the guidelines for water companies that differentiate between core and non-core sites. That would be a practical way of fulfilling the often-quoted Labour aim of putting the environment at the heart of Government.
The periodic price review will always be a necessary method of ensuring adequate funding for treating detrimental environmental impact, but that is really treating the symptoms, not the causes, of degradation.
Many environmental problems caused by the water industry involve abstraction in one form or another. A proper system of abstraction licensing would mean that many such problems would not occur in the first place. I know that the Government are undertaking a review of the issue.
The abstraction licensing system is inflexible and economically inefficient, and has resulted in huge environmental damage. It is clearly in need of reform. We must start managing water resources in such a way as to encourage more efficient use of water. That is the only way in which to reduce pressure on our rivers and wetlands. There is no point in spending a fortune putting right what is wrong, if we can avoid it being wrong in the first place.
One reason why the system is so bad is that it is based on what was considered important 30 years ago, when the environment was not under the same pressure, and overall demand for water was very much lower. Consequently, the Environment Agency inherited a backlog of abstraction permissions that have no proper place today.
The system operates on a "first come, first served" basis, and, in addition, many licences have been granted in perpetuity. Many were granted to allow more water to be taken than was required. In some cases, they allow more water to be taken than exists. The agency has to compensate abstractors if it revokes or varies a licence, which can be costly and time-consuming. The net effect is that many licences are effectively cast in stone, and as many as 200 wildlife sites are threatened with legal abstractions.
It is worth pointing out that the abstraction licences system is, furthermore, extremely inefficient economically. Charges are set at a level that recover only the administrative costs of regulating the system. Little attempt is therefore made to reflect the true costs of abstraction, which include enormous environmental damage.
In such circumstances, water is invariably undervalued. Without clear economic signals, those seeking to abstract have little or no incentive to use water effectively, and water is not efficiently allocated between users. Any new system must combine meeting essential water needs while ensuring sufficient water in the natural environment to protect and maintain biodiversity. I should like to suggest a few key elements that should be included in the Government's conclusions.
First, licences of right should be phased out, and existing licences should be required to meet current environmental obligations. That would bring the abstraction licences scheme into line with the system of granting consents to discharge effluent into the water environment, which already builds in a periodic review of consent without compensation, precisely to avoid the problems to which I have referred.
Secondly, the regulatory regime should be expanded to take into consideration abstraction from any form of irrigation, historic abstraction, de-watering operations and abstraction for navigational purposes. Thirdly, applications for new abstractions should include consultation with all interested parties and an assessment of the environmental impact of the proposal and the need for water. All licences should be clearly time-limited.
Fourthly, I should like incentive charging in order to encourage efficiency in the use and allocation of water. Revenue from incentive charging should be directed into projects of environmental benefit.
All those measures would be fairly easy to introduce—if the political will is there. I believe that Ministers want to take action. That will is far more likely to be apparent if the Government also have the will to reform the way in which everything is paid for. Water bills are likely to fall under the price review; the regulator has already made that clear. However, huge regional differentials in domestic bills are likely to remain, because each region will face different challenges in coming years. Unreasonable costs should not be imposed on regions with high infrastructure costs and major environmental challenges. If that were so, people would simply increasingly rebel against necessary environmental measures.
I have already mentioned the problems faced by the people in the South West Water region—but problems do not occur there alone. Customers of North West Water, and those served by Wessex Water and Yorkshire Water, will face particularly high costs of meeting the urban waste water directive. Lead will be a major concern in the north-west, and nitrates will have an impact on areas such as that covered by Anglian water. As time goes by, differential environmental impacts will hit customers very unfairly in some parts of the country, under a bills system that does not allow them any help.
The cost of cleaning up such regional problems will fall almost exclusively on local consumers, so the first change I advocate is the establishment of a new independent water services trust, funded by a 2 per cent. levy on excessive continuing water company profits, which would help to reduce unfair differences in water charges. It should be used to subsidise water projects of national environmental importance, and to encourage more efficient use of water.
Secondly, all customer bills could be cut if the industry relied more on long-term financing and less on customer price rises. There must be a requirement to fund more investment from borrowing and equity raising, rather than by dipping into customers' pockets through endless price increases. I agree with the regulator that excessive profits must be returned more quickly to customers. None of that will help share prices, but we should not be worried about that: shareholders have made a fortune.
The water rates system is unfair and out of date. Valuations date back to the 1970s, and there is no help for those on low incomes and no discount for those living alone. As a first step, moving to the council tax banding system would be far fairer.
For too long, environmental concerns have been seen as expendable—something that we can put aside while we concentrate on bringing down water bills. That does not have to be so. The recent Environment Committee report on sewage treatment, which I hope the Minister has seen, reached exactly the conclusion that ever-rising share prices of water companies prove that more could be done without increasing bills. My proposals would ensure both fairer prices and a cleaner environment.
The Conservative privatisation of water has failed to deliver. People look to Labour to do better. I hope that the Minister can brighten the proceedings at the end of our Adjournment debates this morning with some good news.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on securing this wide-ranging debate, even if we have only a short time for it; clearly, we cannot begin to do justice in the time available to the many complex issues that he has raised, but I welcome the opportunity to respond.
At the water summit last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear that we want a world-class, water-efficient and environmentally sustainable water industry. We should recognise that water is a necessity of life, and that that marks it out from any other commodity. We must take into account the need to give special attention to vulnerable households and the less well-off in our policy making.
I note and agree with many of the hon. Gentleman's points about privatisation, but I hope that he recognises that, as a new Government, we must work with what we have inherited from the previous Administration.
In the 1990s, there has been a sustained improvement in river quality, with a net upgrading of more than 25 per cent. of the total monitored length of rivers and canals in England and Wales; but we want improvements in quality to continue. A regulatory approach to prevent pollution or to enforce controls will often be needed, but there is a mix of measures that may also be relevant. We must get the best mix to realise our aims, be they regulatory, voluntary or economic.
We said last year that we want to explore water pollution charging. We issued a consultation paper in November on economic instruments for water pollution that sought views on a range of possible instruments, and set out in some detail a series of issues relevant to whether instruments could in practice be designed and could operate successfully. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his Budget statement, we are continuing that exploratory work.
The potential advantages of economic instruments are considerable, in that they can encourage more cost-effective improvements in water quality objectives as well as giving greater effect to the "polluter pays" principle; but to judge whether those advantages can be realised in practice, and what the wider consequences of a change would be, requires consideration of a set of complex issues.
Indeed, an acceptance that this is a difficult area is one matter on which responses to our discussion paper were consistent across the board. To provide answers to those questions requires considerable detailed work, and that work is continuing.
The periodic review of water company price limits for the period 2000–05 is already well under way. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to it several times. As I said, water is not only a commodity but an essential for life, and it raises issues of public health. Water charges should be fair and affordable, particularly for the most vulnerable.
I am aware that the variation in charges to customers by water companies is a long-established concern, especially in the south-west.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister will appreciate that there are five Liberal Democrat Members

from the south-west present, and that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) referred to the national situation, there is a marked discrepancy between areas in the impact on households of water charges.
Under the previous regime, we were constantly told that the privatisation of the water companies had restricted their possibilities of obtaining European Union funding for major infrastructure projects, including the clean-up of beaches in the south-west. Is there likely to be a renewed attempt under the Labour Government to obtain outside grant support to cushion the impact of major infrastructure improvements?

Angela Eagle: That is a technical question, requiring a detailed knowledge of European Union funding regimes. As I had no notice of it, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman, so that I can give him an accurate answer.
The current water charges are largely shaped by the present system of economic regulatory control. We are reviewing the underlying system of utility regulation. The review has been considering the structure of utility regulation across all the main privatised utilities, with a view to establishing a system of regulation that is seen as fair by all, but particularly by the consumer. Consumers have long seen the regulatory system as favouring the companies, and we want to redress that balance.
In examining water prices, Ministers will consider the level not only nationally but in terms of differences between companies. The Director General of Water Services will seek guidance from the Secretary of State on broad priorities, in the form of an open letter to the Deputy Prime Minister at the end of April. We hope that the accompanying material will give an idea of how specific issues bear on individual companies, as well as the broad national picture.
In the south-west, for example, we might expect the protection of coastal waters to continue to be an important, perhaps the paramount, issue, even allowing for the major investments that are being made in the current price period.
In considering what guidance to give the director general about broad priorities at national level, we shall certainly consider the implications for individual companies, not least in terms of the effect on water bills. Some of the ideas of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell would have implications for bills, but I shall come to that later. Higher-quality water has to be paid for by somebody, and we must get the right balance of who should take the hit.
The process will be followed up in the autumn by more detailed work to assess the financial implications for individual companies. The Deputy Prime Minister's guidance will be drawn up after he has invited public consultation on the director general's letter. We hope that as many people as possible will make their views known, because water prices and the way in which the money is spent are clearly issues for lively debate. We want to know what people think.
The companies are consulting their customers, my Department has commissioned independent research into customer preferences for environmental improvements, and the Environment Agency is conducting its own research through its regional advisory committees. We hope that those processes will provide a valuable input to the debate, and let us judge where people's priorities lie.
In the current periodic review of water prices, we shall consider the prices not only at national level but as they differ between companies. I hope that that provides some reassurances to hon. Members.
As we get further into the review, I am conscious that the environmental agenda is uppermost in many people's minds. Last autumn, my Department was involved in the process of identifying possible future obligations on water companies for investment to improve environmental quality. Companies were asked to cost those obligations on the basis of detailed guidelines issued by the Environment Agency.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could get the Environment Agency to withdraw the core and non-core guidelines that he was worried about. I can reassure him that those are a device to help with data gathering, and have no implications for lesser or greater protection of special sites, be they identified under European legislation or under our own. There is no need to withdraw them, because they are not as meaningful as he seems to think.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: That comment is extremely helpful. I know that most of those concerned will read the debate and accept what the Minister says, but it would be helpful if she could write to me to clarify that position and put it formally on the record.

Angela Eagle: I am happy to do that, but I hope that my assurance is worth the same whether it is given in the House or in a letter.
There are very real concerns about the need to protect all sites of special scientific interest. The Environment Agency guidelines asked water companies to cost the protection of any site of special scientific interest that was on the priority lists drawn up by English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales and was affected by discharges from sewage treatment works or by water abstraction in the vicinity. It was especially important to distinguish the sites that are also special areas of conservation or special protection areas.
There is an important role for the conservation agencies in advising the regulators and the companies themselves on what needs to be done to protect the sites. It is vital that conservation objectives are properly established. Those objectives need to identify the habitats, plants and animals whose favourable conservation status is significantly influenced by water quality.
The conservation agencies will also need to identify the nature of the link between the water quality of the site and the conservation objectives. That is important because, if we are to ask water companies to make substantial investments to provide extra treatment, or to pay for it, we need to be as sure as we can that the treatment provided will be effective in providing the protection that such sites need.
There has been some debate about the nature of the legal responsibility placed on water companies, the Director General of Water Services and Ministers in relation to the protection of sites of special scientific interest. My officials are considering that. We are considering particularly the points made by English Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

In a sense, however, that is not the real issue. Protection of SSSIs is a key matter to which we must give serious consideration as part of the environmental agenda in the periodic review. However, it is only fair to point out that the Government are likely to have to make some difficult decisions to balance legitimate aspirations for environmental improvements against acceptable water bills for customers. Coming from the south-west, the Liberal Members who are here know that only too well. We must take a sensible view of how much can be done now, and how much we can plan for the future. To do that, we need clear objectives and a demonstrable expectation that the action we contemplate will prove beneficial in protecting these precious environments.
Protecting SSSIs and the environment in general is a continuing task. The pressures and responses do not come and go with each periodic review. Moreover, they change in nature over time. In future, a major pressure is likely to come from climate change and its impacts on water resources and water environment. Just as pressures on the water environment have changed and are likely to change further, it is necessary that the legal and administrative arrangements governing abstraction from it are sufficiently flexible to allow an appropriate response.
That is why we launched, as part of our water summit 10-point plan, a review of the water abstraction licensing system. The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell had much to say about abstraction. The system was put in place in the early 1960s. Although it placed a framework of controls on abstraction, it was fettered from the start by what was perceived as the need to give all the abstractions that then existed what was called a licence of right, regardless of the effect that they were having on the environment. Much as we might wish that that had not been done, the fact is that it was.
Not only those licences but most licences for new abstractions granted since, right up to the present, were granted until revoked. Granting an abstraction licence without a time limit allows no account to be taken of our improved understanding of how the water environment works or of climate change effects on the availability of water for abstraction. It hampers redistribution of that resource among other abstractors who may be able use it more wisely, and encourages the notion that the water belongs to the abstractor, even though that has never been the legal position.
We are having to consider that aspect of the licensing system very carefully. The solutions of the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell sounded simple and logical. If they were legally possible, I would be much happier. We are trying to be as creative as we can, but we are having to take careful legal advice about the implications of changing the abstraction system. We will produce the result of the review when in a position to do so. His seemingly logical solutions are not always deliverable without considerable costs in compensation, which are likely to be legally unavoidable.
We recognise that abstractions under a small proportion of existing licences are damaging sites specifically protected under the European Union habitats and birds directive or by designation as an SSSI. We have found that voluntary variation or revocation by the licence holder cannot be negotiated. If there is no negotiation, the Environment Agency should use its existing powers, on a clearly prioritised basis and on grounds that will stand the scrutiny of public inquiry, to vary or revoke the


offending licences. Unfortunately, in those circumstances, the agency must be prepared to pay compensation where necessary. That is the legal position.
We are addressing compensation arrangements in the short and longer term as part of the review. We expect abstractors to behave responsibly towards the environment, and to seek voluntary solutions wherever possible. We expect such proposals to come forward in the water companies' periodic review submissions.
Since taking office, we have encouraged a new spirit of co-operation between the Government and the water companies, based on firm regulation and the changing nature of regulation. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's water summit marked the beginning of that. We recognise the positive way in which the companies have responded to the challenges set them.
They have not just opposed us all down the line: they have co-operated, for which we are grateful. We recognise, as do they, that there is further to go. I hope that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell also recognises it, given the number of reviews and the system that we inherited.
With the Government's firm encouragement, we are confident that the water companies will achieve the level of care for all their customers and for the environment that is our vision, taking into account the elements of social justice and fairness that are so important in considering what, after all, is a necessity of life, not simply a commodity.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Sierra Leone

. Mr. Savidge: What plans she has to provide assistance to Sierra Leone. [34626]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): In the last two weeks, we have provided £1 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross for humanitarian and protection work in Sierra Leone.
The Foreign Office has provided substantial funds for peacekeeping. We have also funded £1 million of emergency equipment and technical advice to help President Kabbah's Government become operational as quickly as possible. We will continue to play a full and active part to support the restoration of democracy and help rebuild the shattered economy.

Mr. Savidge: The House will unite in congratulating Her Majesty's Government on acting so swiftly and effectively. What are the Government's plans to provide continuing, long-term assistance to Sierra Leone as it emerges from its dreadful nightmare, and to involve other countries and international agencies in that process?

Clare Short: Britain has historical responsibilities in Sierra Leone, and it was only right that we did everything we could to restore democracy. The fighting has not finished everywhere, and we must be ready to move in quickly with food and medicines to help the Government restore their competence throughout the country. We must particularly help to get seeds and tools into the hands of people so that they can grow their own food. We are talking to the World bank and other donors to make sure we act together.

Sir Alastair Goodlad: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the commanding officer and ship's company of HMS Cornwall on their work in bringing relief to the people of Sierra Leone during the recent troubles? Does she agree that conflict is a serious cause of poverty, and that the work of the Royal Navy and the other armed services has been vital in the humanitarian relief efforts, not only in Sierra Leone, but in other parts of the world? Can she assure the House that those efforts will not be vitiated in future by the outcome of the current defence review?

Clare Short: It was fortunate that HMS Cornwall was in the vicinity and was able to bring in supplies and assistance to Sierra Leone to bolster the returning Government. We were able to use Ministry of Defence helicopters cheaply, because the MoD charged only marginal costs to quickly provide food and supplies to people who otherwise would be in difficulty.
I agree very much that, in the post-cold-war world, war is more a feature of poorer countries and is more likely to break out within poor countries. It is caused by poverty

and, in turn, it exacerbates poverty. The strategic defence review must take account of that change, and we must have the capacity to intervene rapidly to serve the UN, where necessary, and to learn the lessons of our dreadful failure in Rwanda. The right hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that the defence review will take account of all these changes and the need for our armed forces to continue to make a contribution.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that in addition to the excellent work done so far, some of the needs include making sure that the areas out of the capital become peaceful and stable as soon as possible, and we may be able to help there; that the external borders are secured, so there can be a sense of security within which people can rebuild; and that rebuilding of key buildings and plant is done quickly so that the system can get up and running, and the Parliament—which, I gather, met yesterday—can begin to do its work properly in conjunction with the President?

Clare Short: I know of the hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest, and that of his constituents, in the situation in Sierra Leone. I agree with him. As I said, fighting is not finished everywhere, and we must bring assistance—food and medicines—as rapidly as we can to bring a return to normality. We must get the seed and the capacity to grow their own food into the hands of the people of Sierra Leone, as well as work hard—as we are doing—to get the capacity of the Government up and running, so that the people of Sierra Leone can take charge of their own country and its future. We have to learn from past failure about the demobilisation of those who have been involved in fighting and ensure proper management and civilian accountability of the armed forces, so that there is never again a coup that destroys democracy and does as much harm as has been done to the people of Sierra Leone.

Education Projects

Mr. Pike: If she will make a statement on her Department's expenditure in 1998–99 on education-related projects. [34627]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We expect our Department's expenditure on education projects in 1998–99 to be more than £100 million, which will be directed to achieving the key international targets of universal primary education by 2015 and gender equity in primary and secondary education by 2005. We shall spend more on education as new programmes are agreed with our partners.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that in South Africa the system of education inherited from the apartheid system has left major problems. Bodies such as the Canon Collins Educational Trust for Southern Africa have pointed out the problems in that country. What discussions are being held with South Africa to try to ensure that all the people of South Africa have the best possible opportunity for education, so that the pace of progress can be speeded up in that country?

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I visited South Africa last year and had some


discussions about the matter. I am pleased to say that South Africa, along with Pakistan, Malawi, Kenya and India, have had new basic education projects approved by the new Labour Government, amounting to £100 million in the last year. We are now developing projects in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda, because we believe that primary education is one of the best means of enabling poor people to climb out of poverty and have better health and better lives.

White Paper

Mr. Gray: What representations she has received from non-governmental organisations about the White Paper on International Development. [34628]

Clare Short: NGOs have warmly welcomed the Government's White Paper on international development, particularly our commitment to the international poverty eradication strategy.

Mr. Gray: Of the 148 clauses in the White Paper, only two deal with the voluntary sector. The Secretary of State describes the NGOs' welcome as warm, but how does she reconcile that with the comments of Save the Children, which described its treatment as
perfunctory, incomplete, and a little confusing"?
Is it not the case that her disregard of the NGOs in the White Paper is indicative of a longer-term intention to use national Governments to deliver aid, rather than NGOs?

Clare Short: I think that, if the hon. Gentleman talks to the more thoughtful NGOs, he will find that they would say—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should allow me to answer his question, instead of hectoring before I have replied. He will find that they would say that the White Paper concedes lots of what they have been demanding for a long time, which requires change of everyone. When one has been battering on a door that was closed and it then opens—the Government are more sympathetic and proactive in the field of development and are anxious to work with other Governments where they are keen to do so, because in that way it is possible to achieve much more in terms of the universal provision of basic health care, education and so on—there has to be an adjustment in the role of NGOs.
The welcome for the White Paper has been very strong among NGOs. There has been some carping on the sidelines such as the hon. Gentleman tries to put forward, but not from Save the Children as an organisation. The hon. Gentleman may try to find one mischievous quote—

Mr. Gray: indicated dissent.

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman does n ot have to act out his part—I heard what he said previously. If he listens to the reply, he might learn something—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to put his question, and he should listen to the answer.

Clare Short: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
As I said, the NGOs are all, in turn, rethinking their role in terms of working with a Government who have a stronger commitment to international development and who are seeking to work with other Governments with a stronger commitment. There is still a very powerful role for NGOs, but it is a changed role in changed circumstances.

Ann Clwyd: Although the White Paper's focus on eradicating poverty is very welcome, will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to Rwanda? The Select Committee on International Development has just returned from a visit to that country, which I know she has visited. It is the third poorest country in the world, fighting to recover from genocide, fighting to rebuild its education and health service; yet, with a crippling debt around its neck, it is impossible for Rwanda to survive and pay back that debt. Will my right hon. Friend give it very special attention?

Clare Short: I agree very much with my hon. Friend that the situation that confronts the Government and people of Rwanda is intolerable, and I have a lot of admiration and respect for what they are trying to do. They are recovering from genocide after the international community let them down badly and breached our agreements in international treaties always to intervene to prevent genocide.
Rwanda is a desperately poor country. It has very many people in prison, accused of genocide, and a large number of people trying to survive genocide. A million people have returned. The country has a high debt burden, and yet the Government of Rwanda are determined to make progress. We are committed to doing everything we can to work with the Government of Rwanda to achieve reconciliation, to rebuild the economy and to help with debt. It is not easy, but we are determined to do all that we can.

Dr. Tonge: Also in the context of the White Paper, and Rwanda in particular, have the Government any plans to bring pressure to bear on the European Union to help with the judicial process in Rwanda? Following the genocide, there are so many prisoners in Rwanda who need to be tried and dealt with.
Although the White Paper focuses largely on primary education for all, will the Secretary of State also consider helping with university and higher education in Rwanda, because so many skilled and educated people were lost in the genocide?

Clare Short: The question regarding the criminal justice system in Rwanda is not just a resource question, but a question of trying to build systems and promote speedier trials in a highly traumatised country, but the hon. Lady is right. I visited Kigali prison, which is absolutely full of people accused of horrendous crimes. There must be a system to speed up trials. Then, in the case of some of the more trivial offenders, it may be possible to promote truth and reconciliation, in a style similar to that adopted in South Africa. We have offered help to the Government of Rwanda, and I believe that they are ready to move soon.
On higher education, in Rwanda and elsewhere, we are reviewing all our scholarships and other support programmes to focus on the essential skills needed to


build the capacity of poor countries to take control of their own future. Universal primary education is the key to the progress of a whole generation. Next, one should consider the high-level skills that are needed to give a country the capacity to make progress. It is not enough to put a sprinkling of resources into higher education in a way that promotes the interests of an elite, and does not promote development in the country.

Mr. Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that NGOs based in developing countries provide a terribly important way of delivering aid to the poorest people? Has she been seeking feedback on her White Paper from NGOs abroad?

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that NGOs in the South need strengthening. They are part of the democratic capacity and governance capacity of a country, and we need to devote more support and effort to strengthening them. I continue to believe that, on universal public services such as education and health care, it is best if there is a willing Government with NGOs supporting, criticising and demanding quality services, because then one gets universality. However, there is a case for NGOs, as part of civil society, to stand up for the poor and for quality of services, and one must look to NGOs to provide services where Governments are unwilling. It is less good, but it is the way to go. Strengthening southern NGOs is a major objective of our policy.

Mr. Faber: I listened carefully to the right hon. Lady's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). She must accept that the criticism by renowned organisations such as Christian Aid and Save the Children is more than carping. Even the Select Committee felt that the role of NGOs had been dealt with too briefly in the report.
If the right hon. Lady is keen to accentuate the positive and turn to what is good in her relationship with NGOs, as I am sure she is, can she tell us about the progress of the consultation process that she promised in her Department's reply to the Select Committee report? When does she intend to publish a more detailed response on the role of NGOs?

Clare Short: Up until today, Question Time on this subject has been genuine, but today there is clearly a theme to the questions. Hon. Members are trying to pretend that, there is a conflict between the Government and NGOs in the field of development. That is an untruth. I am sure that, if the hon. Gentleman met some of the NGOs as often as I do, he would know that it was an untruth.
It is true that the step change that is reflected in the White Paper requires a change of strategy for British NGOs. They are engaged in much detailed thinking, and some of them have spoken to me about their change of role, arising from the fact that the Government are making a much more active and determined effort to promote international development. The consultation with NGOs about this change, which comes out of the more informal discussions that we have had and which I announced at Question Time a month ago, will start shortly.

Literacy (Developing Countries)

Mr. Boswell: What steps she is taking to encourage literacy in developing countries. [34629]

Clare Short: As our White Paper makes clear, we are strongly committed to the international target of achieving universal primary education in all countries by 2015. We see this as the most important step in increasing literacy worldwide. We are funding a large number of substantive primary education projects in Africa and Asia, all of which will contribute to the eradication of illiteracy. We also support adult basic education in many of our programmes.

Mr. Boswell: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer, and acknowledge that that is essentially a job to be carried out by nationals of the countries concerned. Will she acknowledge that universal literacy is the absolute basis of all economic and social progress? In particular, will she have regard to the fact that there is a marked gender imbalance in a number of developing countries, and that mothers are the best first educators of their own children?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right. A newly published paper from the World bank looks at what we must do to achieve the international poverty eradication targets throughout the world, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where there are such high proportions of very poor and illiterate people. The finding is that the education of a generation of children, including the girls, who tend to be excluded in poor countries, is the biggest indicator of development. When that generation grows up, those girls as mothers and income earners transform the lives of the next generation. They are more able to earn a living, they are more likely to control their fertility and their own children are more likely to be educated. If there is one single indicator of development, education of all children, including girls, is it.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am sure that there is unanimity throughout the House about my right hon. Friend's last comments. Has she considered how to overcome the difficulty in countries such as Afghanistan, where the ruling authorities are opposed to literacy for girls and women?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. It is universally recognised—it is not a matter of taste or preference—that there cannot be development unless women are empowered and girls are educated. That is a precondition of development. All agencies and donors throughout the world, including all United Nations agencies, are desperately worried about the situation in Afghanistan, which not only holds back development, but is a breach of the fundamental human rights of women and the universal declaration of human rights. There is an agreement across all the major agencies that we cannot and will not provide support and help in the Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan unless equal provision is made for girls and women.

Mr. Wells: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the single most important need in Jamaica is to reduce the level of illiteracy, which for many years has been


running at 50 per cent.? Would she support through the aid programme the introduction of compulsory primary education to reduce illiteracy in Jamaica?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question. On the statistics, Jamaica and the Caribbean have virtually universal primary education, I believe, but there is a high drop-out rate and a serious quality problem. In the past my Department has been engaged in trying to improve the quality of secondary education in Jamaica. I have just been considering the matter. We know in my own city of Birmingham that it is better to pick up a child who is slipping back at primary level than to try to put things right at secondary level. I share the hon. Gentleman's analysis and am looking into the question now.

Strategic Defence Review

Ms Church: What discussions her Department has had regarding the strategic defence review; and if she will make a statement. [34630]

Clare Short: My Department is engaged in the defence review process. I have recently given evidence to the Defence Select Committee, and have had useful and interesting meetings with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Staff to discuss the review.

Ms Church: I know that the Secretary of State shares my view that ridding the world of the scourge of land mines will be a crucial contribution to international development objectives. Does she agree that those objectives will be best achieved if there is a co-ordinated strategy with other Departments? Will she pursue that matter with other Ministers?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend knows that we are doing all we can in that area. We are increasing our efforts to support land mine clearance and to strengthen the capacity of countries with many land mines to do their own clearance work so that we may speed up the process. My hon. Friend is correct: the post-cold-war world is different, and so is the challenge to our armed forces. As I said earlier, the risk of war is more prevalent in poor countries, the victims are increasingly civilians and there are more refugees than ever before. The room for more collaboration between the Ministry of Defence, my Department and the Foreign Office to try to prevent and resolve conflict is very great in the current historic circumstances.

Mr. Blunt: This morning the Defence Select Committee took evidence from Saferworld, among other bodies, as part of its inquiry into the strategic defence review. That organisation mentioned Pakistan, which is the recipient of one of the United Kingdom's largest bilateral aid programmes. It pointed out that Pakistan spends 25 per cent. more on military expenditure than on health and education combined. Pakistan has a missile programme and is developing weapons of mass destruction. It is also suspected of supporting terrorism in other countries. Will the Secretary of State review her policy of granting to Pakistan one of our largest bilateral aid programmes?

Clare Short: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about Pakistan. He has tabled written questions about that

country and the Government's strategy in that regard. Both India and Pakistan are nuclear-capable, have high defence spending and high levels of poverty. They are in unresolved serious conflict over Kashmir, and the situation is a danger to the people of India and Pakistan, and indeed the people of the world. We must see how we can engage most positively in order to promote development, encourage a reduction in defence spending and remove the causes of conflict.
I am certain that it would not be right simply to disengage before we have tried everything else. When a country spends too much on defence and has high levels of poverty there is much suffering and many causes of instability. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we cannot keep supporting the Government of Pakistan if they continue to spend disproportionately on defence.

Mr. Hoyle: In the context of the defence strategic review and the discussions that are taking place, will my right hon. Friend consider abandoning the joint funding of retraining for Russian officers, as Russia is not a third-world country and because that would be a major financial saving to her Department?

Clare Short: I am happy to inform my hon. Friend that my Department does not fund the retraining of Russian military officers. However, I shall ensure that his suggestion is passed to the appropriate Department.
Interestingly, my Department has been very unwilling to engage in military restructuring in the past. We have never gone further than demobilisation, because we obviously do not wish to become involved in the organisation of armed forces. However, we believe that that might have been a mistake in the case of Sierra Leone. Perhaps, if we had done more to make the armed forces in that country accountable to the civilian power, the last coup would have been avoided. We are examining our work in that area, but we shall not go as far as training Russian military officers.

China

Mrs. Ann Winterton: What steps she is taking to prevent funds from her Department supporting coercive abortion in China. [34631]

Clare Short: No funds from my Department support coercive abortion in China now or under the previous Administration. I am very surprised and disappointed that organisations and individuals who claim to have high standards of integrity continue to propagate this untruth. All our funding for reproductive health is contingent on respect for the principles of free and informed choice upheld at the international conference on population and development in Cairo in 1994. The work that my Department supports in China has the purpose of reducing the number of coercive abortions and giving Chinese people the freedom to control their own fertility.

Mrs. Winterton: Will the Secretary of State raise the issue of forced abortions in China with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights? Will she explain to a sceptical public how using United Kingdom taxpayers' money to fund such repugnant practices through the United Nations Fund for Population Activities is consistent with an ethical foreign policy?

Clare Short: Anyone who is serious knows that money given to the UNFPA by the Government and by the


previous Government does not subsidise coercive abortion in any way. On the contrary; it is used to end those abusive practices and to give the people of China control over their own fertility. It is deeply unfortunate that hon. Members propagate untruths.

Afghanistan

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: When she last met aid agencies to discuss the situation in Afghanistan. [34632]

Mr. Foulkes: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not received a request from aid agencies to hold a meeting on Afghanistan specifically. However, officials are in regular contact with organisations providing assistance there, and they keep Ministers informed. My right hon. Friend and I have also discussed the situation in Afghanistan with Emma Bonino, the European Commissioner responsible for assistance in Afghanistan.

Ms Cunningham: The Secretary of State mentioned literacy. A recent written answer states that 17 British-based aid agencies working in Afghanistan are funded by the Department. What steps have been taken to ensure that aid is delivered non-discriminatorily, especially health and education aid? Given the outrageous plight of women in Afghanistan, they are virtually without a voice.

Mr. Foulkes: My right hon. Friend was a prominent supporter on international women's day of the campaign for the women of Kabul. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) may like to know that we recently announced £7.5 million for UN agencies, for the Red Cross and for non-governmental organisations working in Afghanistan. Next month, I shall chair a meeting of the Afghan donors group, which will consider what further action could be taken. I shall bear in mind the points made by the hon. Lady.

Sudan

Rev. Martin Smyth: What representations she has made to the Government of Sudan on obstacles to non-governmental aid programmes. [34633]

Mr. Foulkes: We take every opportunity to press the Government of Sudan on the need for non-governmental organisations and other humanitarian agencies to have full access to vulnerable people. The United Nations, acting on behalf of all donors involved in the international relief effort in Sudan, exerts similar pressure.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the Minister's answer, does he agree that aid has not always reached its destination at the right time, and that some has been blocked, which causes great hardship? Does he also agree that, in other spheres of life, that would be called misappropriation or even stealing?

Mr. Foulkes: We now channel our aid through a number of organisations in which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire might be interested—Oxfam, CARE, the Red Cross and Save the Children. They are effective in getting aid to the poorest and most vulnerable people.
We applied pressure about the stopping of flights to the south, and I am glad that they have been reinstated, which will help to get aid to people who face the severest threat.

Mr. Flynn: Hon. Members owe members of the Select Committee a great debt of gratitude for visiting Rwanda. Is it not extraordinary that, despite extraordinary carnage, there have been fewer deaths there than in Sudan over a slightly longer period? Should not we and the non-governmental organisations redouble our efforts to assist the two halves of Sudan, where murder and slavery exist, and every kind of atrocity takes place?

Mr. Foulkes: I assure my hon. Friend that we are doing everything possible to find a political solution. We support regional efforts to find a lasting solution to the conflict through the Intergovernment Authority on Drought and Development. The lives of the poor people who are suffering will be improved only when such a lasting solution is found.

Palestine National Authority

Mr. Burden: If she will make a statement on the Marin memorandum and EU aid to the Palestine National Authority. [34634]

Clare Short: The European Community aid programme for the Palestinians is due to expire in December 1998. It has helped the peace process survive under very difficult circumstances. We fully support the Council conclusions calling for renewal of this assistance, and shall be seeking to ensure that lessons learned about quality and effectiveness in the current programme are fully taken into account in the future.

Mr. Burden: While the Marin memorandum shows the value of EU aid to the Palestine national authority, does it not also make the clear point that aid without a comprehensive and just political settlement simply cannot work sufficiently? Are not the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary totally in line with the Marin memorandum in ensuring a leading role for the European Union in promoting such a just settlement? Is he not right to say to all parties in the middle east conflict that none of them is above, or immune to abiding by and respecting, the international agreements to which it is a party?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Despite large programmes of assistance to the Palestine authority from the European Union and our own bilateral efforts, the people of Palestine are getting poorer because of the political situation, the closing of Gaza and their inability to work. I agree that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was right to draw attention to the failure of the Israeli Government to promote the peace process. We should all support my right hon. Friend and the European Union in all their efforts to get the peace process back on track. That is the only way to bring peace and development to the middle east.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Gareth Thomas: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 25 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall have further such meetings later today and shall speak at a dinner this evening of leading members of the Asian community, both to celebrate the enterprise of the Asian community and to reiterate our total opposition to racism in all its forms.

Mr. Thomas: Following his successful visit to France, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to administer the coup de grace to the law-making powers of the hereditary peers? Has he received any sign from the Opposition party in the other place that it will co-operate in this long-overdue reform of the ancien régime?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted that we are back on English today. I think that we shall stick with that. It is absolutely essential that we end up with a situation where we do not have people making the laws of this country on the basis of being hereditary peers. I think that that reform is long overdue and I hope very much that the Opposition will now tell us whether they support the principle of hereditary peers in the House of Lords because we could get this reform done more quickly with their consent. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition can tell us what his position is.

Mr. Hague: Does the Prime Minister agree that today's European Commission report fudges the criteria for entry to a single currency?

The Prime Minister: We are obviously considering the report that has been presented, but, no, I do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Hague: The Maastricht treaty lays down that countries joining the single currency should have debts of under 60 per cent. of their national income or should be rapidly approaching it. On the Commission's own figures in this morning's report, eight of the 11 countries that are to join the single currency have a higher level of debt. Two of them have twice that level. Can he honestly tell the House that that is not fudging the single currency?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a range of criteria are taken into account. We shall make our decision as president of the European Union and we shall do it on the basis of the report that has been submitted and also on the basis of the legislation that is set out in the treaty.

Mr. Hague: One of the countries has not only twice the recommended level of debt, but a higher debt level than at the time the Maastricht treaty was signed. The Commission says that the tendency is in the right

direction. That is more ostrich than emu. Does the Prime Minister agree at least that it is essential for the success of economic and monetary union that there is genuine convergence, without any fudging?

The Prime Minister: The answer is that I do believe that, but, as I say, we take into account a range of different criteria and we will apply the treaty properly. I had understood that the position of the right hon. Gentleman's party was to oppose it altogether.

Mr. Hague: Whether Britain is in or out of a single currency, people of all parties have previously been able to agree that jobs and investment are at risk from a fudged single currency. The Prime Minister is president of the European Council at the moment. Does he not have a duty to Britain and to Europe to insist, and at the very least to argue, that only countries that clearly meet the criteria should join the single currency?

The Prime Minister: I agree that it is important for the single currency to work for Britain, whether we are in or out of it. I also agree that it is our duty as president of the European Union to ensure that the criteria are properly obeyed. We shall do so. All I am saying is that, if the right hon. Gentleman reads the report carefully, he will see that a range of criteria are set out. A judgment has to be made on that basis. We shall make it according to the report and to the criteria. We shall, in other words, carry out our duties under the treaty faithfully.

Mr. Hague: All the Prime Minister's answers this afternoon suggest that he will go along with the fudge. This will be one of the most important decisions that the European Council has ever made. People's jobs and businesses are at stake in countries inside and outside a single currency. If he would stand up for strict adherence to the rules, he would have wide support across the House, but is not the truth that, now that the crunch has come, he is not willing to make the hard choices?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with that. Without repeating everything that I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman, yes, I believe that it is important that we adhere to the criteria, which is exactly what we shall do, but the worst thing for this country would be if it lurched into the type of anti-Europeanism that characterises his party. It is only as a result of the change in attitude since 1 May that we have a Government with any influence in the European Union at all.

Mrs. Ellman: Do not Labour's Budget decisions to increase child benefit by a record 20 per cent., to fund a national child care programme for the first time and to concentrate financial help on the poorest families and children, demonstrate Labour's commitment to equality and opportunity? Does the Prime Minister contrast that situation with the record of 18 years of Tory Budgets, which intensified inequality and division—[Interruption.]—trebled the number of poor people and produced the social exclusion that this Government are committed to tackling? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I find it extraordinary that Conservative Members should shout at my hon. Friend when she is raising issues such as child care and help for


the poorest families, which are precisely what government should be about. As a result of the changes that we have made in the Budget, child benefit is going up, there is greater help for people with their child care, there is obviously a cut for everyone on national insurance, and there is extra money for health, education and transport. The changes mean that the poorest households with children will gain an extra £490 a year on average and that 3.8 million children will benefit. I should have thought that that was a series of recommendations and policies that would command support across the House.

Mr. Beith: Bearing in mind the serious difficulties that are being faced by British exporters because of the exchange rate, does the Prime Minister think that the pound is either stable or competitive?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the problems that exporters have over the pound, which has a high value at the moment, but the Budget could take the pound down only if it engaged in revenue-raising measures that everyone would find totally unacceptable and that might not work in any event. We have to provide the right balance between fiscal and monetary policy. We have tightened fiscal policy considerably and, as a result of giving the Bank of England independence over the setting of monetary policy, we have also succeeded in that long-term interest rates are at their lowest for more than 30 years. That stability is precisely what British industry needs in the long term.

Mr. Beith: Does the Prime Minister not recognise that there is one thing that he could do in present circumstances—give a clear and unambiguous commitment that he will promote British membership of the single currency and that he intends Britain to be in the premier division, not the second division, to which the Leader of the Opposition would condemn us?

The Prime Minister: I cannot think of a worse reason for taking a decision of such fundamental importance for the future as monetary union on the basis of the level of sterling at a particular time. That would be foolish indeed. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be advocating getting the pound down by dropping interest rates. Monetary policy has had to be tightened since the election because inflation is back in the system. There is no way in which we should take any risks at all—in terms of either financial prudence or monetary stability—of going back to boom and bust. If we do that, we shall return to the end of the 1980s and the early 1990s, with interest rates at 15 per cent. and record borrowing, bankruptcies and repossessions. Those were the Tory years, and we are not going back to them.

Mr. McNulty: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the impending publication of the White Paper on the London assembly and the London mayor and the apparent conversion of the Tories to campaigning for a yes vote in the referendum, depending on which Tory one is talking to? However, will he strongly resist the extremely tempting offer from Lord Archer, who has promised to give up writing books if he is elected mayor? Although that may be an appropriate

contribution to British literature, the alternative—an Archer mayoralty—would be a complete and utter disaster for London.

The Prime Minister: Our proposals for a mayor for London now have widespread support across the House. I am delighted that the Conservative party has come round to the idea and will campaign for a yes vote. Personally, I think that it will be a good thing for London and, combined with the highly imaginative proposals for London Transport by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, at least now, after years of neglect, we have the chance for a new start for London.

Mr. Collins: Why did the Prime Minister refuse to admit yesterday that he had interceded with the Italian Prime Minister on behalf of Mr. Rupert Murdoch, especially given that the British Embassy in Rome has now confirmed that that is exactly what he did?

The Prime Minister: What I said—I shall repeat it to the hon. Gentleman now—is that conversations between myself and the Italian Prime Minister, as conversations between heads of Government, should remain private. I have made it clear that BSkyB will be treated no differently from any other company.

Jacqui Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as part of its work on implementing the new deal, the employment service in Redditch is already working with local agencies on training, enterprise, housing and welfare advice? It is also implementing a new deal guaranteed to continue working with young people until they have permanent work or training. Does he agree that such work is to the credit of the Employment Service in Hereford and Worcester and that it shows that we now have a Government who are keen to promote jobs, training and opportunity for all, as opposed to policing a burgeoning benefit bill and inefficiency, as we saw in the past 18 years?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the work that has already been done under the new deal and the numbers of people who now have the chance to get back into the labour market. Already, more than 1,000 lone parents have moved from benefit to work. Hundreds of young people are taking advantage of the scheme and thousands more will do so in the next few months. It is a great tribute to the Employment Service, employers and those who, for far too long, have not had the opportunities that they need. I hope that tomorrow's Green Paper will take the process one stage further. It is important that we have a welfare state in which there is work for those who can, security for those who cannot and opportunity for those who are denied it.

Sir Peter Tapsell: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the honour paid to him yesterday by the French Parliament, but will he explain why we see so little of him in the British Parliament?

The Prime Minister: During these Question Times, the hon. Gentleman gets precisely the same chance to


question me as there used to be under the old system—it is just a shame that the questions from the Opposition are so poor.

Mr. Prosser: Does my right hon. Friend remember being in my Dover and Deal constituency before the general election and visiting the highly successful trust port of Dover, which the Tory Government were ready to sell off to the French? With the economic policies of this Government and the confidence that they engender, the port of Dover now handles one third of European trade, and is planning to build a second terminal. Last week it signed contracts that will create 1,600 new jobs. Is it any wonder that my constituents will never vote Tory again? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I think that I heard the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) say, "Bring back David Shaw." I think that, when my hon. Friend won the Dover seat, he probably united both sides of the House.
I am delighted at the good news from the trust port: it shows exactly what can be done—new jobs, stronger service and a great sense of the future. That is precisely because we put the interests of the service before the dogma of privatisation.

Miss McIntosh: As a pro-European, does the Prime Minister accept that one of the criteria for joining a single currency is a two-year membership of the exchange rate mechanism? Can he envisage a time when it would ever be right for Britain to rejoin the ERM?

The Prime Minister: First, we have no plans to rejoin the ERM, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear on many occasions. Secondly, what is important is exchange rate stability. Those matters will be decided in the same way as I explained earlier to the Leader of the Opposition—according to a range of criteria. The hon. Lady will find that that is what a report from the Commission, published today, says.

Mr. Plaskitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lobby held yesterday against the Child Support Agency reflects growing concern that the agency has failed many families and children? Will he assure the House that the Government review will be completed as speedily as possible; and that it will concentrate first and foremost on the interests of children?

The Prime Minister: It is important that the review concentrates first and foremost on the interests of children. It will be published later this year. We believe it important to undertake fundamental reforms of the system, since most people now accept that the Child Support Agency is neither administratively satisfactory nor, often, fair and just in its decisions. That is why we undertook the review; as soon as it is ready, we shall bring it before the House.

Mr. Wigley: As the European Commission's new proposals for structural funds leave Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with no objective 1 status, will the right hon. Gentleman make a determined effort on the part of the Government to ensure that the newly defined western and coalfield region of Wales, whose GDP per head is

72 per cent. below the threshold for objective 1 status, enjoys objective 1 status under the proposals for the years 2000 to 2006?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the publication of the Commission's proposals for structural funds marks the beginning of the negotiations. We shall negotiate the best deal we positively can for Britain. I cannot give guarantees for particular areas, but we have said that the Commission's proposals are unacceptable because many of our areas would lose out. The purpose of the negotiation is to prevent that from happening. The last time that the Commission made proposals, we went through the same process of negotiation.
It is important to see this in the context of the enlargement of the European Union. Changes will have to be made to the structural funds, and it is important that they should be fair as between all the countries—hence our objection to the proposals as they are now. Change to structural funds is a necessary part of enlargement. If we want the end—enlargement—we must also will the means. We shall get the fairest deal that we can, but change there will be.

Mr. Clapham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, towards the end of the previous Government's term in office, the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996 went through, restricting the backdating of disablement payment in cases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma cancer? Those diseases can be caused by exposure to white asbestos, a considerable amount of which still enters this country and is in many materials used by the construction industry. Will he therefore ensure that the current DSS review considers backdating payment to the date of development of those diseases? Will he press ahead unilaterally with a ban on white asbestos if the EU does not go ahead with a European ban?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has raised this issue a number of times. A standard time limit on backdating those benefits is designed to ensure fair treatment for all citizens. There would be a problem if particular benefits were picked out and longer backdatings were allowed for some rather than others. However, we accept the special circumstances of people affected by asbestos. From April 1997, industrial injuries disablement benefit has been available where the disease has been caused by any exposure to asbestos at work, and the usual waiting period has been waived to pay benefits to sufferers as soon as possible.
On the second point, we have already toughened up the restrictions and regulations on the use of all types of asbestos in the workplace. We are presently working with European colleagues to get a Europewide directive on this, as we believe that that is a better way to proceed. It is important, however, that the action we take is matched by action elsewhere in Europe.

Mr. Ruffley: Why is the national tax burden increasing from 38.1 per cent. of gross domestic product last year to 40.1 per cent. of gross domestic product in five years' time?

The Prime Minister: Actually, if the hon. Gentleman compares our Budget proposals in the Red Book with those of the previous Government, he will see that, under both sets of proposals, the tax burden is set to rise.

Dr. Iddon: Last year, the Deputy Prime Minister asked the water companies to stop water wastage by investing


some of their profits in infrastructure. All they have done is produce higher dividends for shareholders and, even more seriously, reduce water pressure, thereby endangering lives throughout the country, according to fire brigades. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an insult to the Government? Will he assure the House that more action will be taken?

The Prime Minister: Within the powers available to him, the Deputy Prime Minister is seeking to ensure that the problems to which my hon. Friend draws attention are dealt with. Dealing with water leakage was one of the initiatives taken straight after the election. It is regrettable, especially given that profits in the industry have been so high, that those complaints are still being made. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will keep the matter under review.

Mr. Tyler: Do not the BBC's proposals for political and parliamentary reporting not only undermine its reputation for public service broadcasting but blow sky high its charter obligations? Would it not be better to be honest, to dumb down completely and sell off channels to Rupert Murdoch?

The Prime Minister: Those are matters for the BBC, but it must act in accordance with its charter. It is the Government's job to make sure that it does, and we shall do that. I am sure that a lot of pressure will be exerted on the BBC by the hon. Gentleman and many others in the House who feel the same way.

Dr. Whitehead: I am sure that the Prime Minister agrees with me about the amazing all-purpose funding properties claimed for the Liberal Democrats' magic penny. After last week's Budget, does the additional money that the Government have put into the national health service now stand above or below the magic penny standard measure?

The Prime Minister: The extra money put into health, education and transport comes to far more than could possibly be raised by 1 p on the standard rate of income tax. Indeed, the Government are putting more money into hospitals and schools this year than the Liberal Democrats ever asked for. However, according to the Liberal Democrats' broadcast on the Budget, that 1p is apparently no longer necessary—the "p" has dried up! They now say that it should all come out of what they call the "Chancellor's war chest". The fact that the Liberal Democrats are now pursuing tax-and-spend policies that are only spend policies simply demonstrates the complete incredibility of their economic policies.

Mr. Rendel: In February, the Government announced that the jobseeker's allowance cuts that were part of the Conservatives' spending plans would be reconsidered as part of the welfare state review. In the light of that, does the Prime Minister agree that it would be best also to reconsider, as part of that review, the lone parent and council tax benefit cuts?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with that. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it clear in his Budget statement that we would not go back to benefit

for lone parents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I do not think that it is a shame; I think that it is right. I think that, pro rata, lone parents and couples should be treated in the same way. However, as a result of the help given in the Budget to all families with children, they are much better off than they would be either under the Conservative plans that were published before the election or under the Liberal Democrats' plans.

Dr. Stoate: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although the Government pledged to stick to the Red Book targets of the last Government, we have invested significant extra money in the economy for health, education and the new deal for young adults? Will that not make a huge difference to the economy?

The Prime Minister: There is the £3.5 billion that has gone into the welfare-to-work programme, which, as I have said, is the largest programme of its kind that any Government have ever introduced. There is—as I have also said—the additional money for schools, hospitals and transport, and there is the additional money for child benefit.
The priorities have changed, but yes, it has always been necessary for us to keep a tight grip on public spending. Under the Conservative Government, the national debt doubled. This year, we shall spend more on interest payments on debt than we spend on our whole school system. It is to restore faith in public finances that the Chancellor has presented the measures that he has presented—but, within the public finances, the priorities will be Labour priorities, not Tory priorities.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Prime Minister recall that, when the body of Mr. Keys was discovered in the Maze prison, the first statement issued by the Northern Ireland Office was to the effect that his death had been due to suicide, although it was blatantly obvious that the man had not only been murdered, but had been tortured beforehand? Can the Prime Minister give us a guarantee that in future he will ensure that any statements that are issued are accurate? Can he also give a guarantee that the Government will now protect the lives of those in the prison, and that no more inmates will be murdered?

The Prime Minister: To the best of my knowledge, the report and the statement were correct in terms of what people believed on first finding the body. It is true that the findings then changed, and that the statement changed as a result. I cannot guarantee that every statement will always be accurate if the perception of the facts changes; what I can guarantee is that we shall do our best—as we have—to tackle any such problems, in the Maze prison or elsewhere.
As for what happened in the Maze prison, the regime there—which has been operating for some time—is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, under review. There is the report from Sir David Ramsbotham, and there is also the Narey report. We have agreed to publish those reports, so that people can make up their own minds. Of course the situation is desperately serious, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the statement made by


the Minister at the time was made in good faith, even if it subsequently turned out to be subject to change.

Mr. Timms: When the last Government left office, was not unemployment still considerably higher than it had been in 1979? Youth unemployment was more than twice the overall level, yet there were large and growing skill shortages in key parts of the economy, particularly in information and communications technology. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the enormous new opportunities for work in information and communications technology will be available to young people in my constituency, many of whom would have been abandoned to unemployability by the last Government's policies?

The Prime Minister: Some £200 million additional finance was provided in the Budget, and that money can go towards tackling skills shortage problems. It is absolutely necessary that we deal particularly with the computer and technology problems that will arise as a result of the millennium bug, which is why the Government have singled out for more resources computer and information technology. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the large numbers of people—

the 3.5 million workless families—who will, for the first time, have the opportunity to work and to earn a decent living.

Mr. Jenkin: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his grand words about rooting out corruption in Labour councils with the continuance in office of the Lord Provost of Glasgow, Pat Lally?

The Prime Minister: That is a quite bizarre question, because the Labour party has taken disciplinary action against that individual, who is, of course, perfectly entitled to go to the court, which is what has happened.
I contrast the actions of the Labour party on any allegations of impropriety—we have always acted, and acted straight away—with those of the Conservative party, which has to its discredit the scandal of Westminster. The Conservative party took no action against any of the people involved in that scandal, exactly as, before the general election, it took no action against Members of Parliament who breached the proper rules of conduct. The last people from whom we will take lessons on corruption or impropriety are the Conservatives, whose record is shameful.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I take points of order after statements.

London Governance

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to made a statement about our proposals for a Greater London authority.
Last July, we published a consultation paper setting out our proposals for an elected, strategic authority for London. More than 1,200 individuals and organisations responded, and we have listened carefully to their views.
Today, we are publishing our detailed proposals for a radical new type of local government. For the first time in the United Kingdom, people will have the opportunity directly to elect their mayor—the mayor of London. Londoners will also be able to elect a small, streamlined, strategic assembly. The new authority will have new powers devolved from central Government. It will work with the boroughs and not duplicate their work.
This is another step in our programme of constitutional reform. We are establishing new devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales, with the full consent of the people of Scotland and Wales. We are now taking a significant step in the decentralisation of government by establishing these new arrangements in London.
The proposals fulfil our manifesto commitment to restore democratic, citywide government to London. It is almost 12 years since the Greater London council was abolished by the previous Government. There was no consultation then—no Green or White Paper, and certainly no referendum. Public opinion polls at the time showed overwhelming opposition to the abolition of the GLC; indeed, it was sheer arrogance on the part of the Government to abolish it without the consent of Londoners.
However hard people have tried to fill the gap, there is no substitute for democracy: no voluntary committee, no consultants' reports, no Cabinet Committee can substitute for London democracy. London needs leadership with a clear mandate from the people to tackle the problems that have built up over the years, such as traffic congestion, decaying infrastructure, air pollution, crime and social exclusion.
The Labour Government have decided to give Londoners the choice to have a voice. Londoners will vote on our proposals in a referendum on 7 May—if they vote yes, as I believe they will, we shall introduce the necessary legislation.
Many of the world's great cities have thrived on powerful, directly elected mayors—cities such as New York, Toronto, Cologne, Wellington and Rome. Now, for the first time, a local authority in Britain will have a directly elected mayor and a new form of assembly, which will act as a check and balance on the mayor. Uniquely in this country, there will be a separation of powers between them.
I intend to bring arrangements for policing in line with those in the rest of the country. Since the days of Robert Peel, the Metropolitan police have been responsible only to the Home Secretary. The time has come for that to change; we must make the police accountable to Londoners. We are therefore establishing a new police authority. The mayor will appoint 11 assembly members to the board of the new Metropolitan police authority.
The mayor of London will be a powerful figure, with an electorate of more than 5 million voters—more than any other individual politician in the country. They will expect the mayor to deliver real improvements in their quality of life. The mayor will therefore need considerable powers. The mayor will directly control two powerful new organisations responsible for transport and economic development in London, control large resources—currently more than £3 billion—and be a powerful voice for London at home and abroad.
To balance the powers of the mayor, there will be a new type of council and a different role for its members. The new assembly will think and plan strategically for the benefit of all Londoners, examine and test the mayor's policies and performance, and be able to approve or amend the mayor's budget. The assembly will also have a wider role; it will have wide-ranging powers to investigate issues on behalf of Londoners.
We believe that this new form of London government demands a new type of voting system, tailor-made for London. We want the mayor to have a clear mandate. With an electorate of 5.5 million people and a potentially long list of candidates, we must have a system that ensures that the mayor has the backing of the largest possible number of people. The Government believe that the supplementary vote system—known as SV—for the election of the mayor will achieve that. It allows voters to mark their first and second choice of candidate, and will therefore give the mayor a strong mandate to implement his or her manifesto.
The assembly will have a different role, and the way in which it is elected will need to reflect that difference. It needs to ensure a direct link with local constituencies and broad representation of all Londoners. We believe that the system must also enable women and members of ethnic minority groups to be more fairly represented. The assembly will therefore be elected by a system similar to the one being used for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly: the additional member system. That means that 14 of the assembly members will be directly elected from 14 constituencies by a first-past-the-post system, and that 11 others will be drawn from Londonwide lists to reflect the proportion of votes that the parties receive.
The GLA will have eight significant areas of responsibility. It will develop and manage an integrated transport system; create jobs and promote economic regeneration; tackle crime; ensure that Londoners have adequate fire and emergency services; improve London's environment; devise a strategy for land use planning; promote London's arts, sport and tourism; and improve the health and quality of life of Londoners. Each of those has an impact on the others, so it will be essential for the mayor to tackle London's problems in an integrated and sustainable way. A number of important organisations under the mayor's control will assist in that task.
We will create a new London development agency, which will implement the mayor's economic and regeneration strategy. It will have powers to attract new investment, create jobs and tackle the problems of rundown areas. It will also be one of nine similar regional development agencies that we are creating across the English regions. It will be responsible to the mayor and not the Secretary of State. As the first democratically accountable development agency, it will be a trailblazer for the other regional development agencies.
An efficient, integrated, transport system is essential to the capital's health and prosperity. Transport for London will be responsible for the underground, London buses, taxis, most main roads, river transport and the docklands light railway. It will also have a say in how other commuter railways are run. The mayor will appoint the chair and board, set its budget and be responsible for its strategies and performance.
I have already set out our proposals for an accountable police authority. We want to ensure that, in tackling crime, we bring together all those London organisations that have a part to play. Londoners have confirmed that they would expect the mayor to oversee the fire service. The mayor will therefore appoint assembly members and London borough councillors to a new fire and emergency planning authority.
The state of London's environment is an important element in its competitiveness, and is crucial to the quality of life and health of those who live in, work in and visit London. The mayor will have substantial new powers and responsibilities, working with the boroughs and others, to improve air quality, tackle noise and London's growing waste problem and improve Londoners' quality of life in other ways. That will contribute to improving the health of Londoners, and will encourage tourism and inward investment.
Matching economic regeneration, social and environmental needs will require the best use of the resources available. The mayor will be responsible for drawing up strategic planning guidance. Boroughs will continue as local planning authorities, but their development plans will have to conform to the mayor's strategy.
Culture, tourism and media and related leisure services are the second biggest component of London's economy, currently totalling £9 billion. London's culture acts as a magnet to visitors both nationally and internationally. It is essential that the quality and diversity of the capital's cultural achievements should be maintained and improved.
A new forum to be established by the mayor will include existing cross-London cultural and sports organisations. It will play a major part in developing the mayor's strategy. Government funding for tourism in London will be channelled through the mayor.
It will be understood from what I have said that we are creating new and radical institutions to give London the means to solve its problems and maximise its potential. We will also require new ways of working, to ensure that the GLA is genuinely accountable to the community that it is elected to serve.
The GLA will be an open and accessible authority: the assembly will meet regularly and in public; the mayor will have to notify the assembly of all major decisions and give reasons; each month, there will be a question time, when the assembly questions the mayor and senior officials; twice a year, there will be a people's question time, when the mayor and assembly can be questioned in public and by the public. [Interruption.] I do not understand why Conservative Members consider it so important for parliamentarians, but not for the people of London, to be able to question representatives. Every year, the Mayor will deliver a state of London address, which will be debated in an open, public forum.
That is just the starting point. We expect the GLA to develop other imaginative ways in which to consult and to involve people in its decisions.
Our aim is also to simplify the structure of governance in London. A number of organisations will be absorbed wholly or in part into the GLA. That will mean change, but we will work closely with the affected organisations. I would like to reassure staff that transfers will be within the public sector, and will be on existing terms and conditions. We will examine the pension arrangements, with a view to ensuring that the GLA offers broadly comparable arrangements within the public sector.
The financing of the GLA will come from a range of sources. It will inherit existing funding for the services that it provides for Londoners. The grant, council tax, business rates and credit approvals currently amount to about £3.3 billion. The mayor will decide how the money is to be spent. The assembly will approve the mayor's budget, and there will be safeguards to protect service standards.
The greater part of the authority's funds will be spent on transport, economic development, policing and fire services. The mayor and assembly and their small staff will cost about £20 million a year—less than 1 per cent. of the GLA's budget. The Government will also spend up to £20 million in preparation for the GLA, including the provision of its headquarters.
These are exciting and radical proposals, which I am proud to present to the House. They are a significant part of the Government's programme of constitutional reform, and they correct one of the previous Government's most foolish, undemocratic and reckless acts. They secure the role of the boroughs, placing responsibility for taking decisions at the right level. London will have an elected mayor for the first time in British history.
Above all, the proposals provide a choice and a voice for London, and return government to the people of London.

Sir Norman Fowler: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we believe that the public of London should have been allowed two separate questions in the May referendum on whether they want a mayor and, separately, on whether they want a directly elected assembly. We greatly regret that the Government did not agree to that, and we regret it even more having seen the White Paper proposals, which profoundly affect the 32 boroughs of London. Although we will say yes in the referendum, because of our support for the mayor, we do not accept many of the proposals in the White Paper. In particular, we do not accept the devaluation of the role of borough councils that is implicit in virtually every page of the White Paper, but was hardly mentioned in the Secretary of State's statement.
Is it not a fact that the Government are proposing layer after layer of administration and bureaucracy for London? There will be a mayor for London, a new assembly for London, a development agency for London, a transport authority for London, and a Government office for London, as well as the prospect of junior executive mayors throughout London. Only then do we get to the borough councils. Is not one of the White Paper's fundamental faults the fact that, although the borough councils are nearest and most directly accountable to the public, their powers are being curtailed? They are being sidelined.
Let me give the example of planning. On page 14 of the White Paper, the right hon. Gentleman sets out his planning plans. He says:
The Mayor would set the overall framework for the development of London. The boroughs would continue to deal with small and local planning matters but major developments in the boroughs should fit in with the Mayor's overall scheme.
Does he not recognise that many London residents will be greatly concerned if that means that decisions on vital local issues such as the green belt and the development of green-field sites are handed over to a new central authority?
Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise also that there will be concern about the new authority's cost and its taxing powers? Is it not the case that it will be able to raise money by top-slicing proceeds from council tax? Will he confirm clearly—it is anything but clear in the White Paper—that the Government are considering giving the new authority the power to impose taxes on cars coming into London and to put new taxes on car parking by offices and shops?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance on the Metropolitan police? The Home Secretary has been the police authority since 1829. It should be emphasised that the Metropolitan police has served the public well over the past 170 years. It has a local policing role, but will the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that nothing will be done that could conflict with its role in fighting terrorism or its other national roles?
At the end of his statement, the Deputy Prime Minister talked about returning government to the people of London. How does he square that with the electoral system that he proposes? Does not the first-past-the-post part of proposals mean that 14 assemblymen will have constituencies of more than 500,000 people to serve? How is that close to the people of London? Does not the proportional representation part mean that the remaining assembly members will be on a list system, answering first to their party organisation? How is that close to the people of London?
The Secretary of State referred to the May referendum, but let me remind him that there are also borough elections on that day. I hope that the public will use that opportunity to register a protest against the proposals in the White Paper, which have the undoubted effect of reducing the power of the boroughs, to the disadvantage of the people of London.

Mr. Prescott: When a complaint is made that there will be one question rather than two questions, I say that no question was asked by the Tory Administration when they abolished the Greater London council. It is one question rather than two, because we are proposing a new form of local government. The mayor is an integral part of the assembly system. There are checks and balances. It is a radically different form of local government. That is why we have asked people in London to endorse it. On 7 May, we will see the answer. Nevertheless, the Opposition have done a U-turn and decided to support the proposals. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) draws this distinction: "I support the principle, but I do not like the White Paper." The issue will be decided on 7 May.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to certain bodies and organisations, but the London borough authorities have welcomed the White Paper. There are many matters that they will want to discuss with us and, now that the White Paper has been published, we will be able to have discussions with them. The general principle involved in the discussion and consultation groups might be unusual to the right hon. Gentleman—it is called consultation. In consultation, one gives a reasonable idea of the sort of thing one wants to do. Our proposals have been warmly accepted, and they are embodied in the White Paper. That is why the authorities are able to say that they agree generally with the White Paper and with the new form of London government. We will enter into proper discussions with them on these matters.
We are not changing a great deal of the activities of the borough authorities; the strategic example of that is roads. For example, 95 per cent. of roads are relevant to the activities and traffic management of borough areas. Some 5 per cent. of London's roads carry something like one third of the traffic. Those are the strategic routes which cross borough boundaries, and it makes a lot more sense to have a strategic approach. That is what the GLA is doing with roads and all forms of transport.
The right hon. Gentleman complained about the organisational structure, but we are recommending a bonfire of a number of the quangos that the Conservative Government set up. They did away with the elected representation. As for the financing and the available resources, we have said that the cost is equivalent to about 3p on band D council tax. As with all local authorities, about 80 per cent. of funding comes from central Government, with 20 per cent. raised through council tax, and so on. There is not a great change in the way in which local authorities will be financed, although the scale of the resources in total is considerably different because we are dealing with the capital city.
As for our consideration of raising finance through charges for non-residential parking, we have said that we will deal with that in the White Paper on transport. The principles in the White Paper will apply to all local authorities. London is a different type of local authority, but it is a local authority, and the rules we introduce will apply to all.
With regard to the police authority, I echo the right hon. Gentleman's words on the work of the Metropolitan police. I welcome the fact that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has welcomed the White Paper. He is in a good position to make a judgment on whether the extra powers that we are giving him will strengthen or weaken him in tackling crime. I assume that it is fair for me to say that, if he welcomes the White Paper, it must strengthen his position. That is another mark of the success of the White Paper.
As for the electoral system, we have said that this will be a different form of local government. Fourteen of the assembly members will be elected by direct election, and we have decided that the remaining 11 will be elected from a list system, because we believe that that will give a wide representation of the various groups in London. That principle has been followed in Scotland and Wales, and the House has debated it. We think that it will provide better representation, which is important in getting support for the new London authority. It is my view that on 7 May there will be an overwhelming endorsement of the radical approach to London government taken by the


Labour Government, and a total rejection of the carping and U-turns that are the Conservative party's history on London local authorities.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: May I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on putting before Londoners an exciting and radical new job opportunity? I wish to raise two small points of concern. Listening to his account, I felt that he has come down against those Londoners who argued that we needed more powers for the assembly and fewer powers for the mayor—a case that has been reflected strongly in opinion polls. On finance, if there are to be no direct tax-raising powers, can we expect that Londoners will be allowed to keep a greater share of the £6 billion more that we pay into the national Treasury than we get back? The worst problems in Britain are here in this city.

Mr. Prescott: The judgment made in the White Paper is to get a proper balance of powers, checks and balances between the assembly and the mayor. I think that it is a proper balance and that we are right to do so, but we shall leave it to the electorate to make that decision. The arguments regarding resources are more on a national level than internal to London. That is a debate which is on-going in the House and, no doubt, my hon. Friend will have a chance to make more of those points in coming days in what I think is a rather nationalist fervour.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I thank the Government for being clearly committed to restoring democratic government to London, which is much appreciated, and for the process of Green Paper, White Paper and referendum, which is clearly the proper way to proceed? I also thank the Deputy Prime Minister, as a northerner, for being clearly committed to London, London's causes and London's success.
First, what are the things on which, as a result of consultation, the Government have changed their mind between the Green Paper and the White Paper—not just clarified, but changed their mind?
Secondly, given that, as I understand it, the financial regime for the Greater London authority will allow the Government to fix a spending ceiling and a spending floor, and, therefore, it looks as though the GLA will not have a huge amount of independence if the Government do not wish it, is that not inadequate for a capital city, which deserves and needs to be able to raise and spend its own resources?
Lastly, given the change of electoral system proposed, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be better to have a system for both the assembly and the mayor that allows independent candidates to have a chance of making progress, not just party political nominees? In any event, can we have the elections next year and not in 2000?

Mr. Prescott: We have not yet decided exactly when the elections will be, but the House will want to ensure that the London authority is well established before the next general election, and we intend to achieve that. We need to embark on discussions with various people about the date and time, and we hope to make a decision in the summer.
One example of a change from the consultative document is the payment of assembly members, which we thought was an important change to make. In view of many of the things that we have heard in the past few years, that was an important step, and it is proper that it be done in a properly accountable democracy.
The independence of these bodies and the question whether the powers will change are a matter of balance. We are creating a very powerful body and a high-profile one—

Mr. Hughes: But not an independent one.

Mr. Prescott: Well, I do not think that Governments totally control such matters at the end of the day. We are giving powers and resources, and giving these bodies tremendous opportunities to speak on behalf of London. That will provide a powerful pressure, not only to the good of London, but perhaps towards effective change in constitutional and political terms. That is what we are doing here; such matters arise during the coming debates.
I think that we have basically got the right balance in electoral change, and I wait to hear people's responses in the coming months. We shall introduce legislation based on the proposals in the White Paper.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Speaking as a son of the last chairman of the London county council, which was destroyed by the Tories in the 1960s, and remembering also the Greater London council, which was destroyed by the Tories in the 1980s, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees with me not only that this is an important and historic day for those of us who are proud to be Londoners, but that we must urge all Londoners to turn out in their millions to vote yes in the referendum, so that the passion for democracy among Londoners speaks so loud and clearly that the Conservatives will never dare to destroy democracy in London again?

Mr. Prescott: Many hon. Members will remember my hon. Friend's father who, as its chairman, was a powerful and effective influence on the authority of that time. It will be an historic day for Londoners and for the constitution itself, because we are making significant constitutional changes.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made some kind remarks about my commitment to London; that commitment is to decentralisation of power, whether in Scotland, Wales or the English regions. London is the first step, and I am hopeful that there will be many more, but this is about the decentralisation of power.
A London authority is something which we should welcome; every one of us should take the opportunity to get everybody to turn out. Democracy is about turnout, it is about mandates and it is about endorsement, so we should be encouraging as many people as possible to vote on 7 May.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that, under these proposals, the status of the City of London, as determined by the conclusions and


recommendations of the Herbert commission, will be maintained, subject to changes in the City's franchise, which I understand the Government have approved?

Mr. Prescott: The City corporation is not dealt with in the Bill. It has said that it will undergo specific changes in its democratic processes, internal procedures and voting practices. I hope that that is the case, and the House may be sure that I shall review matters as they progress.

Ms Diane Abbott: Will the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that the abolition of the Greater London council was one of the most spiteful and undemocratic acts of the previous Administration, and that Londoners of all parties will welcome the restoration of democracy to London? A great capital city deserves an elected authority.
As for the matter of the police committee, apparently Opposition Members are unaware that, for a long time, the Metropolitan police Commissioner has supported the idea of a police committee for London, because he realises that it can play a constructive role in involving communities in the fight against crime.

Mr. Prescott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It was undemocratic and spiteful, as I said in my statement. The Metropolitan police Commissioner has confirmed that view, not only in relation to the White Paper; it was previously his view. He is only confirming what, generally, the rest of the country accepted a long time ago—but in London there was always an exception. I do not believe that that exception was justified. I am glad that the Commissioner does not believe that it is justified. That is one of many changes which will come about as a result of the White Paper.

Mr. Eric Forth: Who will prevail if there are conflicts between the mayor and assembly on budgetary matters, or the mayor and the boroughs on planning matters?

Mr. Prescott: The procedures in all these matters are to be decided, in the sense that there will be a strategic plan that is determined by the mayor, and if the borough plans conflict with it, he will be able to call the matter in. That is exactly like what happens now. Ultimately, in the case of all planning cases, if there is a conflict it will be for the Secretary of State to call the matter in if he decides that that is right. We are not suggesting that London is any different from any other local authority.
One of the advantages that will come from the Bill is that the London assembly people and the mayor will take a decision about safe taxis and not be subjected to the curious behaviour that we have seen in the House, which has denied passengers that safety.

Mr. John McDonnell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that some of us have strong and deep reservations about the proposals for a directly elected mayor. Having said that, I pay tribute to the work that has been done over the years by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) and my right hon. Friend the Member

for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who have kept the flame of the prospect of a restoration of democracy alight in London.
One of the tests of the new authority will be that eventually it achieves an unfettered right to raise a level of taxation in London from Londoners to enable it to tackle the problems that we now face. I also urge my right hon. Friend to think seriously about bringing the elections forward to next year, so that we can restore democracy that much more swiftly.

Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. Many hon. Members with London constituencies have worked long and hard to bring about proposals of this type. I have had the good fortune to arrive in this job and to be able to introduce the White Paper, but I very much endorse my hon. Friend's remarks about those who, for a long time, have attempted to bring back government to London. Regarding the elections, I assure him that I shall do as much as I possibly can to ensure that we have those elections as soon as possible, so that Londoners can have some influence on decisions that affect them.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The additional member system of election is alien to this country, and there is no evidence, in any sense or form, that it is more democratic. The representative democracy that we have enjoyed over the years ensures that there is a direct personal connection between a locality and the elected representative.
I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he is seeking, by manipulating the list members of the assembly, to ensure particular representations of ethnic minorities or of women, he could be in breach of the Race Relations Act 1976 in one case and the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 in the other. Is it not also true that local people can have no confidence in the mayor, who will have unprecedented powers over budget and patronage unless the assembly is able to replace or remove the mayor and unless local people can ensure that, in relation to development plans, their specific interests, especially concerning the environment and the green belt, are safeguarded?

Mr. Prescott: Obviously, I fundamentally disagree with most of the hon. Gentleman's comments. We have agreed that the additional vote system should apply to Scotland and Wales. Therefore, we are not creating a precedent, although the system is new to English local government. The point about additional representation will be relevant to the 14 constituencies in which members will be directly elected. That is an important principle.
In a modern democracy, one must take into account the serious under-representation of women and ethnic minority groups. If we want their support for local government, they must have some stake in it. Representation is an important part of that. I am not sure that the directly elected system is not open to persuasion, change and the other pressures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but we all know the role of party politics in such matters. We have struck the proper balance, so we have presented our proposals to the House.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend for his decision to press for the use of the supplementary vote—a system which was invented in my home in Keswick and worked on for more than 12 months in my office in London—for the election of the mayor of the new authority? I believe that it is the system which should finally be used for the election of Members of Parliament. It is a thoroughly democratic system, which I am sure will please the people of London and, ultimately, the wider nation.

Mr. Prescott: I recall that my hon. Friend gave evidence to the Plant committee on that very point. The plans that we have adopted with regard to the mayor are right. It is important that there should be a popular mandate—that as many people as possible agree to support a mayor. This is the best way of ensuring that, which is why we have adopted it.

Sir Paul Beresford: The Deputy Prime Minister made much of checks and balances. Will he correct me if I am wrong in my impression that a developer could submit a plan to the local authority, it could be called in by the mayor, who, on checks and balances, would have the Greater London authority involved in the decision at that level, the development agency would also be involved, and the plan could then be called in by the Secretary of State through the Government office for London?

Mr. Prescott: That is an important point, which was raised by my hon. Friend. I explained that not every planning decision by the borough can be called in by the mayor, but he can have a role in regard to decisions taken in boroughs, which are of strategic significance. He must develop a strategic plan to achieve that and to show where those differences can be established. At the end of the day, it will still be the Secretary of State who will make the planning decision in regard to these matters.

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: May I offer my congratulations to the Deputy Prime Minister on the statement that he has just made, and echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks)? This is indeed a proud day to be a Londoner, whether one has a classic cockney accent like mine or a south London accent like my hon. Friends.
I refer to a matter on which my right hon. Friend did not comment—the siting of the new mayoralty and the elected assembly. I have previously pointed out that, as the centre of gravity of the capital has been moving eastwards for the past 20 years, docklands may be an appropriate home for the new elected assembly.
I recognise that space is still available at county hall, that the City corporation has offered accommodation at the Guildhall and that other premises may be available in the capital. Given the experience of Scotland and the competition between Glasgow and Edinburgh—a decision which I consider has been inappropriately concluded—and the difficulty between Swansea and Cardiff, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister who will make the decision on

where the mayoralty will be sited? Will it be the Government office for London or the mayor, and when is that decision likely to be taken?

Mr. Prescott: That could be a very controversial decision. The Government will make a decision initially so that we can get on with London government, but, after that, the elected authority can make its own decision.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the new London transport board be responsible for planning air transport in London, and particularly for the configuration of airports that serve the London area?

Mr. Prescott: That is a very interesting point. The strategic question of aviation and the siting of airports will affect London and its development. That decision will be considered as part of the national transport plans; we shall say more about it in the White Paper. The mayor will clearly want to be consulted about the matter. For example, he may have an opinion about the expansion of London City airport and the effects on Heathrow, and so on. Such issues will affect London, and the mayor will have an important voice in policy development in that area. However, the mayor will not make the decisions.

Mr. Geraint Davies: As the former leader of London's largest borough, I add my support to the initiative. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal will add value to local boroughs because, instead of floating around in an isolated individualistic manner, there will be an holistic approach to economic development, transport and the environment? Will he confirm that the subsidiarity principle will apply to planning and that individual boroughs will have a unitary development plan set within the wider framework of the evolution of an economically successful and environmentally sustainable capital for Britain?

Mr. Prescott: A grievance expressed by many London authorities is that, with the abolition of the GLC, they have had no influence over those strategic decisions apart from some consultation now and then with a Government Department. We must develop a strategic plan in consultation with the boroughs. The GLA will be a strategic authority and it will have a close relationship with the boroughs, which will have influence on the boards.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Deputy Prime Minister echo my enormous welcome for the political vigour of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), but does he share the concern about the early direction of the hon. Gentleman's campaign for mayor? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the official publication "London Facts and Figures 1995" reveals that public spending per head in London in that year was 20 per cent. higher than public spending per head in Scotland? In the light of that, is it altogether wise for the hon. Member for Brent, East to make public spending in Scotland an issue in his campaign in London—particularly given the fact that he might want some expatriate Scots to vote for him?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. No doubt he and my hon. Friend can meet outside this place and discuss the facts of the case.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a great day for Londoners like


me, who were born in London, and for the millions of Londoners who have come from all over the world to live in this great city? Does he recognise that a great advantage of his proposal will be that we shall at last be able to rid this city of the residuary bodies and the quangocracy and begin to have some democratic accountability regarding the governance of Londoners and this city?

Mr. Prescott: Yes, I do. That is right at the heart of what the White Paper is about. Not only Londoners but people all around the country will welcome the introduction of democratic accountability to their capital city. I am Welsh by birth and I represent a Yorkshire constituency, and I am delighted to advance proposals for democratic accountability in London.

Mr. Alan Clark: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to enlarge upon an answer that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), as I think that his reply may have gone rather further than he intended? What right of appeal will there be to the Secretary of State against decisions of the mayor and, in particular, what rights will be vested in borough councils or other organisations or individuals? While such a right would be very welcome, how does the Deputy Prime Minister square it with his alleged attempts to decentralise power?

Mr. Prescott: I may have made a mistake, although I do not think at this stage that I did. I shall examine the matter carefully and write to the right hon. Gentleman. As I said before, the London authority will develop a strategic plan. It will allow for appeals to the Secretary of State, who will be the final arbiter.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the current position of the Conservatives in London? Who represents them? Is it the Tweedledum who has just rubbished the White Paper, the Tweedledee who was dancing around on the bus for the yes campaign the other day or the funny little man from the other place who likes to give £2,000 to people he does not even know?
Mr. Prescott: That is an interesting point, but I usually keep out of such controversial issues.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am an expatriate Scot. As the assembly and mayor will have some tax-raising powers, who will collect the tax—the boroughs or the mayor and the assembly?

Mr. Prescott: Council tax will be collected by the boroughs.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that the new London development agency must consider the development of Wembley, our national stadium? It should be fitting and appropriate for a national stadium, and of a standard that one expects of national stadiums throughout the world, especially as we hope to welcome the World cup and the Olympic games to this country in future.

Mr. Prescott: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who has made that point often. The planning and

development of the national stadium and of the roads and transport that serve it will have considerable implications for London. The development of Wembley stadium is a good example of how accountable strategic planning in London will benefit his constituency.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the borough of Reigate and Banstead and the constituency of Reigate lie within the Surrey county council area, but are cut in half by the boundary between the Metropolitan police and Surrey police areas? In the interests of accountability, and so that local people are aware of which police force is theirs, will he support the position of all political parties in the borough of Reigate and Banstead and change the boundaries of the Metropolitan police area to those of the Greater London area?

Mr. Prescott: We have no proposals at the moment to change those boundaries, but we recognise that democratic accountability in London applies to people outside the Greater London area. We shall be seeking an agreement about representation on the police authority between authorities that are outside the Greater London area but within the Metropolitan police area.

Mr. William Thompson: I welcome developments in London, especially the election of a mayor for the city and the increase in democracy in the London area, but will the Secretary of State contrast and compare that with the lack of local government democracy in Northern Ireland? Will he use his influence as Deputy Prime Minister to persuade the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to restore proper, accountable local government in Northern Ireland so that we, as equal citizens of the United Kingdom, can enjoy the same privileges there as Londoners will have in London?

Mr. Prescott: The House listens with concern to the hon. Gentleman's comments. The current discussions, which are led by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, are geared to achieving a normal situation in Northern Ireland, which is an essential prerequisite to proper democratic accountability.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Deputy Prime Minister talked about respect for people and for Parliament. Given that much of what he has said appeared on the internet this morning on the BBC's website and others, will he undertake to show less contempt for the Greater London authority than he has apparently shown for Parliament?

Mr. Prescott: Everyone is concerned when documents are leaked. I gave the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) a White Paper a short time before I made my statement—before the time that is considered usual—and that was all that I was involved in. It is proper for such a document to be considered by the Opposition.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I deplore the fact that the information appeared on websites and in the Evening Standard. I played no part in that, and should like to have prevented it. What has happened is most frustrating, because I strongly believe in reporting to the House at the earliest occasion, and shall always try to do


so. I am sorry about what has happened and offer my apologies, but I cannot guarantee that it will not happen again. It is demeaning to the House that the statement was reported in the paper before it was made to the House. I shall continue to do whatever I can to stop that.

Points of Order

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been brought to my attention that the hon. Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) have urged residents of Milton Keynes to canvass for the Labour party and have sent them invitations in franked House of Commons envelopes to attend a social event, which has apparently been organised by the Labour party, to discuss local elections with Members of Parliament from the region.
You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that I provided you with some documentation on the subject and said that I would raise it as a point of order because I seek your advice and guidance on it. It seems to me that what has transpired is a scandalous abuse of taxpayers' money for a party political purpose in which the two hon. Members are engaged. I think that the Serjeant at Arms' office has had something to say about the matter, but I should be grateful for your ruling.

Madam Speaker: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the House that if any hon. Member thinks that others are abusing the use of stationery in that way, the matter should not be raised in the House. Our procedure is to go directly to the Serjeant at Arms who will resolve the matter. The two hon. Members concerned are here. I will not allow a debate on the point of order, but they have been challenged and it is their right to be heard.

Mr. Brian White: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It is true that my staff sent invitations to party members and supporters. The vast majority of them were sent in Labour party envelopes. Unfortunately, when they were finished, a member of my staff used some House of Commons envelopes by mistake. When I heard about that, I went to the Serjeant at Arms on Tuesday and offered to reimburse the House for the misuse of those envelopes. I apologised at that time and I apologise now. It was a genuine error.
However, the comments by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will not stop me standing up for the people of Milton Keynes and campaigning on their behalf.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Mr. White. That resolves the problem.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is no longer in his place. Earlier this afternoon, the hon. Gentleman accused the Lord Provost of Glasgow of corruption. At no time was that person charged with corruption and it is disgraceful conduct for any hon. Member to accuse an elected member of a local authority of that, because it besmirches the local authority. I know that hon. Members are free to say things in the House that they dare not say outside, for fear of being sued, but the hon. Gentleman's conduct was deplorable, and it ought to be discouraged.

Madam Speaker: I am not responsible for what hon. Members say in the House. I have always urged that when hon. Members use the privileges of the House what they say should be tempered by responsibility. I heard the comments and I heard the Prime Minister's response. I think that he dealt with it very well.

Local Exchange Trading Schemes

Mrs. Gilroy: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend social security regulations with respect to local exchange trading schemes; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House what has been described as the most significant new community development tool of the decade. The scale of this country's voluntary sector is immense. It involves 23 million people—more than the number of people who operate in the economy's formal labour markets. People seek to be stakeholders in myriad ways, combining individual purpose and collective responsibility through a mix of voluntary, community and business activity.
In our manifesto we said that an independent and creative voluntary sector that was committed to voluntary activity as an expression of citizenship was central to our vision of a stakeholder society. One of the most imaginative and popular innovations to emerge from the voluntary sector is the local exchange trading scheme movement, or LETS as it is becoming commonly known. LETS are community-based exchange networks that inspire local people of whatever means to pool their skills, imagination, time and resources to create a supportive community of self-help and mutual aid. They do it through a system of community credits, valuing what is given or received in terms of local units of exchange.
Community credits, which are known in their various forms as local or community currencies, time dollars, service credits or service hours, have captured the public imagination and fascinated the media. Each local exchange trading scheme adopts a local name for its unit of exchange: from ideals in Bristol to readies in Reading, from groats in Stirling to exes in Exeter. The names of the units often have strong local connotations. In my constituency, they are called plums after the plum tree from which some people say Plymouth gets its name.
Most LETS involve only up to several hundred members. They bridge the gaps between voluntarism, the market and public sector provision. Like a well-known beer, LETS have the capacity to reach the parts that neither the state nor the formal market economy can reach.
By creating an intermediate, grass-roots social market with their own intermediate social currency, such schemes empower people who are socially excluded to feel that they can make a difference to their lives and to their communities in 101 different ways. They are the essence of social inclusion, valuing people as responsible contributors: as producers rather than passive recipients. They empower people to create their own means of obtaining a hand up rather than a handout.
Exchanges through LETS reflect people's abilities and express their needs. Women often form a majority of members. The most common services involve child care, preventive and remedial health and care services, home produce, arts and crafts, do-it-yourself repairs, gardening, shared transport, personal education and the development of skills through mentoring and peer group support. Exchange of health care services represents 20 per cent. of all exchanges, and in many areas general practitioners refer patients to LETS.
The growth of co-operative projects, including food co-ops and tool banks, and the involvement of local voluntary agencies is expanding. There are multicultural projects. About 25 LETS have been established specifically for mental health user groups and for people with disabilities.
LETS renew the social fabric of communities, creating a framework in which everyone's contribution is valued. They enable people to tackle for themselves poverty, community breakdown and social isolation. It is for those reasons that LETS have been hailed by community development professionals as
the most significant new community development tool of the decade".
Some of the most far-reaching studies on social exclusion have identified that poverty reduction is by no means solely a matter of income. Fewer chances to hear of work because of reduced social networks, deterioration of skills, lack of ability to acquire new skills—or, having acquired them, to use them—and low self-esteem are all addressed by LETS.
LETS offer a social network that includes people from diverse backgrounds, within which exchange takes place. They offer skills development through those exchanges. They offer recognition of worth and value from receiving credits, which demonstrate that what has been done is of value to someone else in the community. People often receive a huge boost to their confidence when they receive LETS credits for their service.
The wide-ranging appeal of LETS arises most fundamentally from that general longing that many people have in today's world for a return to a real sense of community. More than 1,000 LETS have appeared throughout western Europe, with 450 in local communities throughout the United Kingdom covering most towns, cities and rural areas. Most follow the British self-help community development model of LETS that was pioneered by the national voluntary agency LETSLINK UK, which has just been awarded national lottery charity funding to maintain its support of groups nationwide.
LETS are recognised in key policy recommendations in reports of the Commission on Social Justice and the Commission on Environmental Health. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Local Government Association and the Local Government Management Board also recommend that LETS should be nurtured as
core rather than fringe activities.
More than 100 local authorities and a growing number of health authorities have embraced LETS and are investing in them as an important new anti-poverty, health promotion and community development tool.
Hon. Members may be asking themselves why, given such friends and recognition, LETS need a Bill to promote their interests. There is a growing fear among LETS members whose income derives from benefit—as well as among groups that support and encourage their development—that the DSS may apply inappropriate earnings rules to LETS, treating the credits as though they were money.
Many of the most disadvantaged, who have the most to gain from participating in LETS, depend on incapacity or disability benefits, lone parent benefit or jobseeker's

allowance. The possibility that, in gaining credits with very limited purchasing power, they may as a result of local DSS discretion lose the basic cash benefits that are essential for their living expenses has for some time been deterring a large number of people from joining LETS.
That fear has been heightened by a recent DSS circular underlining the possibility that LETS may result in housing benefit deductions. We must take note of the early warning signs that people on benefit who are already members may withdraw from LETS in large numbers if the housing benefit circular is not quickly amended. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform is considering the issue, and I am hopeful that the immediate threat can be dealt with through the simple means of straightforward administrative clarification.
The most cursory examination of LETS will reveal that, in terms of what it will buy, the local credit is patently not the same as money. At face value, the unit may be loosely related to the pound, but it bears no comparison in spending terms and cannot be exchanged for sterling.
LETS operate on a relatively small scale. Unlike the formal market, they do not supply day-to-day goods and services on a regular basis—99.5 per cent. of exchanges are between individuals and the remaining 0.5 per cent. offer only non-regular goods and services for a percentage of LETS. At least 30 independent surveys of LETS bear that out, including two conducted by the Rowntree Trust, and call for amendments involving a blanket disregard of LETS in the DSS regulations.
The recognition of LETS-type community credits has already prompted clarification of the benefits rules in the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Holland and Ireland, where Governments are now proactively supporting their development and promoting them for the unemployed through jobcentres. In America, time dollars are not only exempt from benefit clawbacks: they are guaranteed by the US Government as an intermediate form of supplementary pension entitlement. Over the past two years, the active participation of unemployed people in a time-dollar scheme has been even further enshrined as one condition, for those still seeking work, of entitlement to remain on benefit.
The Commission on Social Justice, a report for the Rowntree trust and leading think tanks, including DEMOS and the Institute for Public Policy and Research, have recognised the potential of LETS for tackling social exclusion and creating a new infrastructure of community support and have been advocating clarification of the benefits rules. My Bill would bring LETS back into the main stream, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. David Drew, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Paul Goggins, Mr. Andrew Love, Ms Patricia Hewitt, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Cynog Dafis and Maria Eagle.

LOCAL EXCHANGE TRADING SCHEMES

Mrs. Linda Gilroy accordingly presented a Bill to amend social security regulations with respect to local exchange trading schemes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed [Bill 159].

GOVERNMENT OF WALES BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [15 January],
That paragraph 2 of the Order [15th January] be amended by inserting at the end '; and on the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.'—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
Question agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF WALES BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the further Report [24th March] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That this House agrees with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 136.

Division No. 230]
4.34 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Dr Lynda


Allan, Richard
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Allen, Graham
Clwyd, Ann


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coaker, Vernon


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Coffey, Ms Ann


Baker, Norman
Cohen, Harry


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Coleman, Iain


Barnes, Harry
Colman, Tony


Battle, John
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bayley, Hugh
Cooper, Yvette


Beard, Nigel
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corston, Ms Jean


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Crausby, David


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cummings, John


Benton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Best, Harold
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Betts, Clive
Dafis, Cynog


Blackman, Liz
Dalyell, Tam


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blizzard, Bob
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Borrow, David
Davidson, Ian


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brake, Tom
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Brand, Dr Peter
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Denham, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Browne, Desmond
Donohoe, Brian H


Buck, Ms Karen
Doran, Frank


Burgon, Colin
Drew, David


Burnett, John
Drown, Ms Julia


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Canavan, Dennis
Edwards, Huw


Cann, Jamie
Efford, Clive


Casale, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caton, Martin
Fearn, Ronnie


Chaytor, David
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Chisholm, Malcolm
Flint, Caroline


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Rt Hon Derek





Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McDonnell, John


Gapes, Mike
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gardiner, Barry
McIsaac, Shona


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gibson, Dr Ian
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McNulty, Tony


Godman, Norman A
Mactaggart, Fiona


Goggins, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marek, Dr John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Grocott, Bruce
Martlew, Eric


Grogan, John
Maxton, John


Gunnell, John
Meale, Alan


Hain, Peter
Michael, Alun


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Milburn, Alan


Hanson, David
Miller, Andrew


Harris, Dr Evan
Moffatt, Laura


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Healey, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mountford, Kali


Hepburn, Stephen
Mudie, George


Heppell, John
Mullin, Chris


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hill, Keith
Norris, Dan


Hinchliffe, David
Oaten, Mark


Hodge, Ms Margaret
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Olner, Bill


Hope, Phil
Öpik, Lembit


Hopkins, Kelvin
Organ, Mrs Diana


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pearson, Ian


Howells, Dr Kim
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Lindsay
Plaskitt, James


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pollard, Kerry


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pope, Greg


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pound, Stephen


Hurst, Alan
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hutton, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Iddon, Dr Brian
Prosser, Gwyn


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Purchase, Ken


Jamieson, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rammell, Bill


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Rendel, David


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Covtry NW)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Roy, Frank


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Keetch, Paul
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kemp, Fraser
Ryan, Ms Joan


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Sanders, Adrian


Kidney, David
Savidge, Malcolm


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Sedgemore, Brian


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Shaw, Jonathan


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheerman, Barry


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lepper, David
Skinner, Dennis


Levitt, Tom
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Linton, Martin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lock, David
Soley, Clive


Love, Andrew
Southworth, Ms Helen


McAvoy, Thomas
Spellar, John


McCabe, Steve
Squire, Ms Rachel


McDonagh, Siobhain
Steinberg, Gerry






Stevenson, George
Walley, Ms Joan


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wareing, Robert N


Stott, Roger
Watts, David


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Webb, Steve


Stringer, Graham
White, Brian


Stunell, Andrew
Wicks, Malcolm


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


(Dewsbury)
(Swansea W)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Willis, Phil


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Willis, Michael

 
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Winnick, David


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wise, Audrey


Timms, Stephen
Woolas, Phil


Tipping, Paddy
Wray, James


Todd, Mark
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Touhig, Don
Wyatt, Derek


Trickett, Jon



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. John McFall and Mr. Jim Dowd.


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gray, James


Amess, David
Green, Damian


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Greenway, John


Arbuthnot, James
Grieve, Dominic


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Beggs, Roy
Hammond, Philip


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hayes, John


Blunt, Crispin
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Body, Sir Richard
Horam, John


Boswell, Tim
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hunter, Andrew


Brady, Graham
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Brazier, Julian
Jenkin, Bernard


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Johnson Smith,


Browning, Mrs Angela
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Key, Robert


Cash, William
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clappison, James
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lansley, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Leigh, Edward


Collins, Tim
Letwin, Oliver


Colvin, Michael
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lidington, David


Cran, James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Loughton, Tim


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Luff, Peter


Day, Stephen
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Donaldson, Jeffrey
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Duncan, Alan
MacKay, Andrew


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Evans, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Faber, David
Madel, Sir David


Fabricant, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Fallon, Michael
Maples, John


Flight, Howard
Mates, Michael


Forsythe, Clifford
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
May, Mrs Theresa


Fox, Dr Liam
Moss, Malcolm


Fraser, Christopher
Norman, Archie


Gibb, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Page, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Paice, James


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Paterson, Owen


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Pickles, Eric





Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Robathan, Andrew
Townend, John


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tredinnbk, David


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Trend, Michael


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Tyrie, Andrew


Ruffley, David
Viggers, Peter


St Aubyn, Nick
Walter, Robert


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wardle, Charles


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
 Waterson, Nigel


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wells, Bowen


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Soames, Nicholas
Whittingdale, John



Willetts, David


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spicer, Sir Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Spring, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Streeter, Gary



Swayne, Desmond
Tellers for the Noes:


Syms, Robert
Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. John M.Taylor.


Tapsell, Sir Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Government of Wales Bill

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Committee), considered.

Mr. Michael Ancram: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members will be aware that, in the regional lists set out in clause 4, the Bill provides for elections for a registered political party, defined in that clause as
a party registered under any enactment providing for the registration of political parties.
Hon. Members will also be aware that a Bill for the registration of political parties will shortly be introduced and that it will govern not only this Bill but the Scotland Bill, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and—if the statement that we have just heard about the White Paper is correct—the London Bill.
We are to debate a clause and an amendment—amendment No. 183—about an aspect of registration on which the registration of political parties Bill could have a crucial effect, either in remedying a fundamental flaw that we have identified and raised earlier, or in failing to remedy it. To make any sense of today's debate, which is crucial to the integrity of the Bill that we are considering, it is necessary to have detailed sight of the forthcoming legislation.
I have already asked for that formally. On 2 March, I said:
So central is the question of registration to the proper working of the electoral roll system that it is unconscionable that the legislation could complete its passage through this place without full sight of, and discussion about, the statutory criteria by which registration will operate…I make that point very seriously at this stage in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to ensure that, when we return to the Bill on Report on the Floor of the House in due course, we shall be fully apprised of the details of the forthcoming legislation".
The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), led me to believe that he had some sympathy with my view, although he qualified what he said. He said:
I am not in a position to give a guarantee about when the details on registration will emerge.
He could, however,
assure Opposition Members that we want to see whether it will deal with these issues."—[Official Report, 2 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 803–5.]
The hon. Gentleman also accepted that the matter was crucial and central.
The point is that we have not had sight of the legislation. I have made inquiries of the Table Office and the Library, but I have been told that it is not ready even in draft. It is not possible for the House to see it, although—as the Government have acknowledged—whether the fundamental flaw that I have mentioned would be remediable is central. Surely the House has a right to information that would allow it to understand the implications of a vital element of legislation such as this Bill before it completes its passage.
I do not believe that today's debate on the proposed electoral process should take place until hon. Members have had a chance to give proper consideration to the

details—even if only in draft—of the registration of political parties Bill. Without a sight of it, we will be asked to complete our consideration of this Bill in the dark. At the very least, we need to debate this extraordinary situation, which has been caused by the Government's failure to provide crucial information.
I therefore ask whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will accept a motion, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have listened with care to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I appreciate the notice he gave of his concerns and his arguments, but I have to tell him that I am not prepared to accept such a motion. However, I understand that amendment No. 183, to which he referred—which is tabled in his name and those of his hon. Friends—is broadly connected with the matter that he raised. I would be prepared to permit a separate Division on that amendment. However, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that, in terms of the programme motion, I will not be able to do that if the amendment cannot be moved before 11 o'clock.

Mr. Ancram: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling. I shall take on board what you said about amendment No. 183.
On another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will be aware, we are proceeding in this business on the basis of a uniquely agreed programme, which was agreed among all the parties at the beginning of the Committee stage and which settled on a given number of days for Committee and Report.
As you will understand, such an agreement is based on the time that Opposition parties believe they need to do justice to important legislation being taken on the Floor of the House. In this case, it was agreed that there would be seven days for the Committee stage—now completed—and two days for Report and Third Reading.
If, on Report, the Government bring forward substantial new clauses and amendments in the knowledge that they will take precedence over any other business—thereby reducing the time available to the Opposition parties to discuss matters that they wish to discuss—should there not be a duty on the Government to allow extra time, as provided for under the original business agreement?
As the protector of Back-Bench rights in this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will understand my concern that, unless this is resolved as a matter of principle, future agreements of this sort could be defeated by Governments effectively hijacking Report stages, in the way that the Government have sought partially to do on this occasion.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a most serious matter. I for one have long advocated the timetabling of very important Bills such as this. This is the second occasion on which we have encountered problems during devolution debates. A few weeks ago, a very important debate on the West Lothian question was seriously curtailed because the Government chose to make a very long statement—as, indeed, they have done again today.
Another problem, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has not mentioned, is that, because the many amendments before us were tabled


so late on Monday, it has been impossible for us to table amendments to those amendments. That is surely a very serious matter. The House is being held in contempt by the Government not allowing a proper debate on these important matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair cannot rule on agreements made between the usual channels. If an agreement is made but then becomes unsatisfactory to one or other of the parties, that matter must be pursued through the usual channels once again. The responsibility of the Business Committee was to consider the matter, and it did so in the way laid down. Now, the House has approved the Business Committee's motion, so we are encased in that motion for our consideration of the rest of the Bill.
I am sure that everyone recognises that we are on a learning process on programmed Bills. Satisfactory progress in the way the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons wants obviously relies on good will between all the parties, through the usual channels, and ensuring that adequate time is made available so that all parts of a Bill receive the scrutiny that is thought right for each of those parts—if this practice is to be applied more widely in future.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are all grateful to you for those wise words, but you are the Chairman of the Business Committee. Although I fully appreciate that what you can and cannot do there is carefully circumscribed—and, as you rightly said, the House has approved the motion—we are most anxious that programming should work.
We have tried to show that in every way—but today the programme has been turned into a guillotine. We find that utterly unacceptable and we cannot guarantee that, on future controversial Bills, we shall want to co-operate as we have sought to do on the Bills in question if adequate flexibility and injury time are not allowed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we are on a learning curve with such matters. I am sure that, so long as there is sufficient good will across the House, if the situations that have arisen in respect of Bills that have been programmed so far appear to one or more parties to be unsatisfactory, that will be examined. That would be in the spirit of the report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons.
The Committee was anxious that the House should accept the idea, and an attempt has been made to use the programming system for two very complex and important Bills, which may for that reason have been more likely to throw up difficulties. I hope, however, that we can overcome those difficulties, so that what is seen as a useful initiative can still be employed in future.

Mr. Ancram: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to take up any more of the House's time, but what my hon. Friend said relates in particular to Government new clause 31, which was, I understand, tabled late on Monday. It was starred yesterday, and we sought to amend it but, obviously, our amendment is starred today and is therefore not eligible to be considered for selection.
I raise that matter because what you have just said reminded me that, on 26 February, the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary had a short interchange on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—their words are recorded at column 546 and I shall not bother the House by quoting them in full—in which they both made it clear that they felt it right for amendments and new clauses to be tabled in sufficient time for amendments to them to be tabled by Opposition parties. That has not been the case in this instance, and I hope that you can tell us that the process outlined between the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary should form the basis of good manners for such proceedings in future.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that we will all learn from the experience that we now have of the Bills that have been programmed. The Business Committee has tried to foresee the difficulties and ensure that adequate time is available, but sometimes, of necessity, contingencies arise. Important Government statements may have to be made or late amendments may be tabled, and those may cut across the perfectly well-intentioned views of the participants in the Business Committee. Perhaps we will learn from that and try to ensure more flexibility in future; I hope that that aim will be pursued through the usual channels.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would allow me to make one or two brief observations in response to the points raised—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the right hon. Gentleman says must be expressed as a point of order. If he wishes to raise a point of order or a further point of order, he may, but this is not an opportunity for a general statement.

Mr. Davies: I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and was about to ask whether you would allow me to make one or two points arising from the observations made by right hon. and hon. Members and from your replies. Therefore, I want to do that as a point of order.
Can you confirm that the Opposition had every opportunity to discuss with the Government the terms of the time made available? Can you also confirm that the Government made available all the time requested by the Opposition to facilitate the debate that was required?
Perhaps you would further confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the first three hours of today's debate will be on a subject initially raised by the Opposition, on which the Government agreed in Committee to table amendments on Report to fulfil the Opposition's request—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is engaging in argument rather than making a point of order. He must know that the Chair cannot confirm those things. The Chair is not a party to discussions among the usual channels and cannot know what is agreed. The Chair will understand only what is produced in terms of resolutions and discussions in the Business Committee.

New clause 20

ASSEMBLY FIRST SECRETARY AND ASSEMBLY SECRETARIES

'—(1) The Assembly shall elect one of the Assembly members to be Assembly First Secretary or Prif Ysgrifennydd y Cynulliad.
(2) The Assembly First Secretary shall appoint Assembly Secretaries, or Ysgrifenyddion y Cynulliad, from among the Assembly members (and may at any time remove a person from office as an Assembly Secretary).
(3) The standing orders must specify the maximum number of Assembly Secretaries that may be appointed.' —[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (c) to the proposed clause, in line 5, after 'Secretary,' insert
'subject to the approval of the Subject Committee of which that Assembly Secretary is a member.'.
Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in line 5, at end insert—

'(2A) The Assembly First Secretary shall appoint—

(a) one Assembly Secretary as the Financial Secretary; and
(b) one Assembly Secretary as the Business Manager.
(2B) The Assembly First Secretary shall not appoint the same Assembly Secretary as Financial Secretary and Business Manager.'.

Amendment (d) to the proposed clause, in line 5, at end insert—
'(2A) Any appointment under subsection (2) above shall not have effect unless it is confirmed by a decision of the Assembly as a whole.'.
Amendment (b) to the proposed clause, in line 6, leave out from (3) to end of line 7 and insert—
'There shall be no more than eight Assembly Secretaries in addition to the Assembly First Secretary.'.
Government new clause 21—Executive committee—
'.—(1) There shall be a committee of the Assembly whose members shall be—

(a) the Assembly First Secretary, who shall chair it, and
(b) the Assembly Secretaries.
(2) The committee shall be known by such title as the standing orders may provide (but is referred to in this Act as the executive committee).
(3) The Assembly First Secretary shall allocate accountability in the fields in which the Assembly has functions to members of the executive committee so that, in the case of each of those fields, accountability in the field is allocated either to one of the Assembly Secretaries or to him.
(4) The Assembly First Secretary need not make an allocation under subsection (3) to every member of the executive committee; but the number of Assembly Secretaries to whom no such allocation is made shall not exceed such number as may be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the standing orders.
(5) For the purposes of this section and section (Subject committees) "accountability", in relation to a member of the executive committee and a field, means that he is the member of the executive committee accountable to the Assembly (in accordance with standing orders under subsection (7)) for the exercise of the Assembly's functions in that field, except the exercise of functions by the executive committee (or by the Assembly itself).

(6) The Assembly First Secretary is accountable to the Assembly (in accordance with standing orders under subsection (7)) for the exercise of functions by the executive committee.
(7) The standing orders must include provision for allowing Assembly members to question (orally or in writing, as Assembly members prefer)—

(a) each member of the executive committee about the exercise of the Assembly's functions in the field or fields in which he is accountable, except the exercise of functions by the executive committee (or by the Assembly itself), and
(b) the Assembly First Secretary about the exercise of functions by the executive committee.
(8) In this section—

(a) references to the exercise of functions by the executive committee include the exercise of functions by a subcommittee of that committee or by members of the Assembly's staff in pursuance of a delegation to the Assembly's staff by either that committee or such a sub-committee, and
(b) references to the exercise of functions by the Assembly itself include the exercise of functions by members of the Assembly's staff in pursuance of a delegation to the Assembly's staff by the Assembly itself.'.
Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in line 4, after 'known', insert
'as the Assembly Cabinet or'.
Amendment (c) to the proposed clause, in line 7, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
Amendment (d) to the proposed clause, in line 10, leave out from '(4)' to end of line 13 and insert—
'The Assembly First Secretary shall make an allocation under subsection (3) to every Assembly Secretary except that no such allocation shall be made to the Financial Secretary or the Business Manager.'.
Amendment (e) to the proposed clause, in line 11, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
Amendment (f) to the proposed clause, in line 15, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
Amendment (g) to the proposed clause, in line 16, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
Amendment (h) to the proposed clause, in line 18, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
Amendment (i) to the proposed clause, in line 22, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
Amendment (j) to the proposed clause, in line 25, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
Amendment (k) to the proposed clause, in line 27, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
Amendment (l) to the proposed clause, in line 29, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
Amendment (m) to the proposed clause, in line 32, leave out 'executive committee' and insert 'Assembly Cabinet'.
Government new clause 22—Subject committees—
'.—(1) The Assembly shall establish committees with responsibilities in the fields in which the Assembly has functions.

(2) The committees established under this section shall be known by such titles as the standing orders may provide (but are referred to in this Act as subject committees).
(3) There shall be the same number of—

(a) subject committees, and


(b) members of the executive committee to whom the Assembly First Secretary allocates accountability in any of the fields in which the Assembly has functions.
(4) The division between the subject committees of the fields in which those committees have responsibilities and the division between members of the executive committee of the fields in which accountability is allocated to members of that committee shall be the same; and the member of the executive committee who has accountability in the field or fields in which a subject committee has responsibilities shall be a member of that subject committee.
(5) The Assembly shall elect a number of Assembly members to be a panel from which the members who are to chair the subject committees are to be selected; and the members of the panel shall be elected so as to secure that, as far as is practicable, the balance of the parties in the Assembly is reflected in the membership of the panel.
(6) The number of members of the panel at any time shall be equal to the number of subject committees at that time; and each member of the panel shall be selected to chair one (but not more than one) subject committee.
(7) A subject committee shall have such number of members (in addition to the person who is a member of the committee by virtue of subsection (4) and the member who chairs it) as the standing orders may provide.
(8) Those other members shall be elected by the Assembly from among the Assembly members so as to secure that, as far as is practicable, the balance of the parties in the Assembly is reflected in the membership of the committee (including the person who is a member by virtue of subsection (4) and the member who chairs it).'.
Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in line 3, after 'known', insert 'as Select Committees or'.
Amendment (c) to the proposed clause, in line 7, leave out 'subject' and insert 'select'.
Amendment (d) to the proposed clause, in line 11, leave out 'subject' and insert 'select'.
Amendment (e) to the proposed clause, in line 15, leave out 'subject' and insert 'select'.
Amendment (f) to the proposed clause, in line 16, leave out 'subject' and insert 'select'.
Amendment (g) to the proposed clause, in line 18, leave out 'subject' and insert 'select'.
Amendment (h) to the proposed clause, in line 22, leave out 'subject' and insert 'select'.
Amendment (i) to the proposed clause, in line 23, leave out 'subject' and insert 'select'.
Amendment (j) to the proposed clause, in line 24, leave out 'subject' and insert 'select'.
Government new clause 23—Delegation of functions—
'.—(1) The Assembly may delegate functions of the Assembly (to such extent as the Assembly may determine) to—

(a) any committee of the Assembly, or
(b) the Assembly First Secretary.

(2) Any committee of the Assembly, apart from the Audit Committee, may delegate functions of the committee (to such extent as the committee may determine) to a sub-committee of the committee.
(3) In addition—

(a) the executive committee may delegate functions of the executive committee (to such extent as the executive committee may determine) to the Assembly First Secretary or an Assembly Secretary, and
(b) a subject committee may delegate functions of the subject committee (to such extent as the subject committee may determine) to the member of the executive committee who is a member of the subject committee by virtue of section (Subject committees)(4).

(4) A sub-committee of the executive committee may delegate functions of the sub-committee (to such extent as the sub-committee may determine) to the Assembly First Secretary or an Assembly Secretary; and a sub-committee of a subject committee may delegate functions of the sub-committee (to such extent as the sub-committee may determine) to the member of the executive committee who is a member of the subject committee by virtue of section (Subject committees)(4).
(5) The Assembly First Secretary may delegate functions of his (to such extent as he may determine) to an Assembly Secretary.
(6) In delegating a function under any provision of this section the Assembly, a committee of the Assembly or a sub-committee of such a committee may limit or prohibit its further delegation under this section or section (Exercise of functions by Assembly staff) (or both).
(7) Where a function has been delegated to the Assembly, this section applies to the function subject to the terms of the delegation to the Assembly.
(8) The delegation of a function under this section shall not prevent the exercise of the function by the body or person by whom the delegation is made.'.
Government new clause 24—Exercise of functions by Assembly staff—
'.—(1) Each of the following —

(a) the Assembly,
(b) any committee of the Assembly, apart from the Audit Committee,
(c) any sub-committee of a committee of the Assembly,
(d) the Assembly First Secretary, and
(e) any Assembly Secretary,may delegate functions to the Assembly's staff. 

(2) Where a function is delegated to the Assembly's staff it is for the Permanent Secretary to the Assembly to make arrangements as to which member or members of the Assembly's staff is or are to exercise the function; and in this subsection "the Permanent Secretary to the Assembly" means the person appointed in accordance with section 35(1) and (3) to be the head of the Assembly's staff (whether or not that person is known by the title of Permanent Secretary to the Assembly).
(3) Where a function has been delegated to the Assembly, this section applies to the function subject to the terms of the delegation to the Assembly.
(4) The delegation of a function under this section shall not prevent the exercise of the function by the body or person by whom the delegation is made.'.
Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in line 7, after 'may' insert 'not'.
Amendment (b) to the proposed clause, in line 7, at end insert 'other than administrative duties.'.
Amendment (c) to the proposed clause, in line 8, leave out 'function' and insert 'duty under subsection (1)'.
Amendment (d) to the proposed clause, in line 10, leave out 'function' and insert 'duty'.
Amendment (e) to the proposed clause, in line 14, leave out 'function' and insert 'duty under subsection (1)'.
Amendment (f) to the proposed clause, in line 15, leave out 'function' and insert 'duty'.
Amendment (g) to the proposed clause, in line 16, leave out 'function' and insert 'duty under subsection (1)'.
Amendment (h) to the proposed clause, in line 17, leave out 'function' and insert 'duty'.
Government new clause 25—Categories of staff—
'.—(1) There shall be three categories among the staff of the Assembly.

(2) The categories shall be—



(a) staff who assist members of the Assembly of all registered political parties in performing their functions in the Assembly and its committees, who shall be known as the parliamentary staff,
(b) staff who assist members of the Assembly of one registered political party only, who shall be known as the political staff, and
(c) staff who perform executive functions on behalf of the Assembly or its committees, who shall be known as the executive staff.
(3) The Assembly shall make provision in respect of—
(a) the numbers of staff in each category,
(b) the transfer of staff from one category to another, and
(c) the designation of functions referred to in subsection (2).
(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent executive staff from providing services for other categories of staff where it appears appropriate to the Assembly First Secretary and the presiding officer of the Assembly.'
New clause 29—Codes of practice—
'The Minister for the Civil Service shall consult the Assembly on any codes of practice or procedure relating to or applicable to staff appointed by the Assembly who serve in Her Majesty's Home Civil Service.'.
New clause 32—Assembly corporate body—
'—(1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as "The Welsh Assembly Corporate Body" (referred to in this Act as the corporation) to perform the statutory functions conferred on the corporation and any functions conferred on the corporation by resolution of the Parliament.

(2) The members of the corporation shall be—

(a) the Presiding Officer; and
(b) four members of the Assembly appointed in accordance with standing orders.
(3) The corporation shall provide the Assembly or ensure that the Assembly is provided, with the property, staff and services required for the Assembly's purposes.
(4) The Assembly may give special or general directions to the corporation for the purpose of or in connection with the exercise of the corporation's functions.
(5) Proceedings by or against the Assembly shall be instituted by or (as the case may be) against the corporation on behalf of the Assembly.
(6) Any property or liabilities acquired or incurred in relation to matters within the general responsibility of the corporation to which (apart from this subsection) the Assembly would be entitled or subject shall be treated for all prposes as property or (as the case may be) liabilities of the corporation.
(7) Any expenses of the corporation shall be payable out of the Consolidated Fund.
(8) Any sums received by the corporation shall be paid into that Fund.
(9) Schedule (Welsh Assembly Corporate Body) (which makes further provision about the corporation) shall have effect.'.
New clause 33—Clerk of the Assembly—
'.—(1) There shall be a Clerk of the Assembly.
(2) The Clerk shall be appointed by the Assembly Corporate Body (established under section (Assembly Corporate Body).
(3) The Clerk's functions may be exercised by any Assistant Clerk if the office of Clerk is vacant or the Clerk is for any reason unable to act.
(4) The Clerk may authorise any Assistant Clerk or other member of the staff of the Parliament to exercise functions on his behalf.'.
Amendment No. 250, in clause 1, page 1, leave out line 11.
Government amendments Nos. 122 and 123.
Amendment No. 231, in clause 35, page 21, line 20, after
'(2), insert—
'Subject to paragraphs (2A) and (2B) below,'.
Amendment No. 232, in page 21, line 21, at end insert—

'(2A) The Assembly may appoint staff to be called Officers of the Assembly who shall be not more than ten in number and who shall not be in the service of Her Majesty's Home Civil Service.
(2B) Officers of the Assembly shall be paid out of monies received by the Assembly from the Secretary of State.'.
Government amendment No. 83.
Amendment No. 233, in page 21, line 34, after 'staff', insert
'but not including officers of the Assembly.'.
Government amendments Nos. 124 to 130, 164, 131 to 136, 139, 88, 141, 150 to 152, 142 and 143.
Amendment No. 198, in clause 149, page 69, line 38, at end insert
'"executive committee" means the Assembly Cabinet,'.
Amendment No. 199, in page 69, line 40, leave out ', and' and insert
'"subject committee" means a Select Committee of the Assembly, and'.
Government amendments Nos. 144 to 149.
New schedule 1—ASSEMBLY CORPORATE BODY—

Membership

1. A person appointed under section (Assembly Corporate Body) (2)(b) shall hold office until another member of the Assembly is appointed in his place, unless he previously resigns or ceases to be a member of the Assembly otherwise than by virtue of a dissolution.

Property

2.—(1) The corporation may hold property.
(2) Subordinate legislation may provide—

(a) for the transfer to the corporation of any property to which this sub-paragraph applies, or
(b) for the corporation to have such rights or interests in relation to any property to which this sub-paragraph applies as the person making the legislation considers appropriate (whether in connection with a transfer or otherwise).
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) applies to any property belonging to a Minister of the Crown which appears to the person making the subordinate legislation to be property which is or may be required wholly or partly for the purposes of the corporation's functions.
(4) Subordinate legislation under sub-paragraph (2) in relation to any property may provide for the transfer to the corporation of any liabilities relating to the property to which a Minister of the Crown is subject and which subsist immediately before the subordinate legislation comes into force.

Staff

3.—(1) The corporation shall appoint assistant clerks and may appoint other staff.

(2) The Clerk and other persons appointed by the corporation are referred to in this Act as the parliamentary staff of the Assembly.
(3) It is for the corporation to determine the terms and conditions of appointment of the parliamentary staff of the Assembly. including arrangements for the payment of pensions, gratuities or allowances to, or in respect of, any person who has ceased to be a member of the staff.
(4) Accordingly the corporation may—
(a) make contributions or payments towards provision for such pensions, gratuityies or allowances,


(b) establish and administer one or more pension schemes.

Powers

4.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), the corporation may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of or in connection with the discharge of its functions.

(2) That includes, in particular—
(a) entering into contracts,
(b) investing sums not immediately required in relation to the discharge of its functions, and
(c) accepting gifts.

(3) The corporation may borrow sums in sterling by way of overdraft or otherwise for the purpose of meeting a temporary excess of expenditure over sums otherwise available to meet that expenditure.
(4) The corporation may borrow money only under sub-paragraph (3) and may borrow under that sub-paragraph only in accordance with the special or general approval of the Assembly.

Delegation

5. The corporation may delegate any of its functions to the Presiding Officer or the Clerk.

Proceedings and business

6.—(1) The validity of any proceedings of the corporation shall not be affected by any vacancy among the members, or by any defect in the appointment, or qualification for membership, of any member.

(2) The corporation may determine its own procedure.
(3) The Presiding Officer shall preside at meetings of the corporation, but the corporation may appoint another of its members to preside if the office of Presiding Officer is vacant or the Presiding Officer is for any reason unable to act.

Crown status

7.—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the corporation to be treated to any extent as a Crown body for the purposes of any enactment.

(2) In particular, the Order may for the purposes of any enactment provide—
(a) for employment under the corporation to be treated as employment under the corporation as a Crown body,
(b) for land held, used or managed by the corporation, or operations carried out by or on behalf of the corporation, to be treated (as the case may be) as land held, used or managed, or operations carried out by or on behalf of, the corporation as a Crown body.
(3) For the purpose of this paragraph, "Crown body" means a body which is the servant or agent of the Crown, and includes a government department.

Mr. Davies: If accepted, the new clauses would replace clauses 52, 55, 56, 57 and 58. I know that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is concerned about the Opposition's ability to scrutinise the whole Bill in the absence of precise details on the Bill on registration of political parties. Perhaps it would assist him if I told him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has invited him and the shadow Home Secretary to discuss the Bill.
I can confirm the assurances given in Committee, that we accept the validity of some of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. I share his concerns, and I certainly want to make sure that the registration Bill, when it is eventually introduced, takes account of the points he has raised.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, and I hear what he says, but the process in the House is

not between the two Front Benches: it is for all hon. Members to take part in debates on legislation. When crucial areas require detail—of the kind to which I have alluded and that he has acknowledged—and that detail is not available, that is a serious matter for the whole House. That is what I am asking him to cure.

Mr. Davies: The flaw in the right hon. Gentleman's argument lies in the fact that the House accepted the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which contains a reference to registration, and Conservative Members did not raise the question of the registration of political parties Bill at that time.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We did.

Mr. Davies: In which case, the House has accepted the precedent that we can proceed to deal with such matters without the registration Bill before us.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Davies: I will not give way, because I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I did not proceed to deal with the amendments.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman can ensure that any intervention is in order, of course I will give way.

Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that it is in order, because otherwise you would soon rule it out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Under this Bill, and in the Scotland Bill, people will cast two votes. Under the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, they will cast only one, so the double-ticket voting does not apply, and that is where the problem with registration is especially germane to this Bill and to the Scotland Bill in a way in which it is not so germane to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
That is why it is inadequate to proceed on the basis on which the Secretary of State has forced us to proceed by the sheer numbers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not necessarily germane to the amendments now under discussion.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened in bewilderment for the past 10 minutes. In the light of what has happened, could you possibly raise with Madam Speaker exactly what the position of the rest of us is in all this? The House as a whole has some rights in these matters.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows—I do not want to repeat myself too much—that the procedures that have been employed for the consideration of this and other Bills have been on the basis of recommendations from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. Those recommendations have been accepted in terms of the composition of the Business Committee.
I am well aware, as is Madam Speaker, of the concern that all Back-Bench and party interests should be represented. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to make representations to the Modernisation Committee if he feels that the procedures that it has recommended so far are defective in the sense he suggests.

Mr. Davies: The purpose of the amendments is to enable the assembly more easily to establish a Cabinet-style process of decision making. They come forward, as the right hon. Gentleman will recall, in response to arguments advanced by Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Devizes and the leaders of other Opposition parties, and in the light of advice from my national assembly advisory group.
The House will understand from the motion before us that we have some three hours available to discuss these relatively non-controversial amendments. The Government have generously provided another two hours injury time this evening because we have had a statement. So we are debating non-controversial amendments tabled to comply with the legitimate request from the Opposition. We provided three hours to discuss them and a further two hours of injury-time debate from 10 pm to midnight this evening.
Therefore, I hardly think that the right hon. Member for Devizes—[Interruption.] He is waving two fingers at me. I think that he is suggesting that we had two statements, but it is now slightly after 5 o'clock. The debate was due to start at 3.30 pm. The debate on the guillotine continued for something approaching half an hour. The right hon. Gentleman must accept that the Government have been more than generous.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying again into more general matters related to the procedure for dealing with the Bill. We should be using the time available to deal strictly with this group of amendments. I take it that the Secretary of State had given way to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the important change in the structure to a Cabinet-type structure have implications for the only amendments that I and my colleagues have tabled? They relate to the Official Secrets Act 1911 in clause 79.

Mr. Ron Davies: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concerns. I do not wish to pre-empt the later debate, but I have listened carefully to the case that he and other hon. Members have made on the provisions contained in the Bill relating to the Official Secrets Act. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) will have some news that the right hon. Gentleman will find welcome when we come to the matter. We have listened carefully to what has been said.

Dr. John Marek: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: I am anxious to proceed with the amendments rather than to have an extended debate at this

point on the Official Secrets Act. On the understanding that my hon. Friend will use all his ingenuity to ensure that his intervention is in order, I of course give way to him.

Dr. Marek: I do not have to use any ingenuity, because my intervention is precisely on the amendments. As there will be Cabinet government for the national assembly, and every servant of the assembly will be a member of Her Majesty's home civil service, there is now a need for the assembly to appoint staff who are independent and owe their loyalty to the assembly rather than to the Government, as the Clerks of the House and the Comptroller and Auditor General owe to this House. Amendments Nos. 231, 232 and 233 would make that possible, and there is a case for considering them carefully.

Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend says, such amendments have been tabled, and I understand that they have been selected. No doubt he will want to speak to them later. It would be inappropriate for me to address those amendments now.
My hon. Friend has suggested that we are about to prescribe a Cabinet-style system for the assembly. We are not. We are making it easier for the assembly to have Cabinet-style government if that is what it wants. It is my expectation that the assembly will establish a Cabinet-style system from the outset.

Sir Raymond Powell: As this is an important step to take, can my right hon. Friend tell me why the matter was not referred to in the paper that we published before the referendum, and why it was not discussed in the debate on the referendum? It is an important issue.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right. It is an important matter. It was debated extensively in the referendum campaign, and reference was made to it in the White Paper. My hon. Friend will recall having discussed the matter before the general election and subsequently.
We discussed at what point on the continuum between the local government committee system and the more centralised Cabinet system the assembly should be located. It has always been the case that there is a judgment to be made as to where on that continuum the assembly should operate. We are now facilitating the opportunity for the assembly, if it so wishes, to ensure that its internal architecture is placed somewhere along the continuum closer to the Cabinet style than the local government committee style. That is what we debated at great length. It is something that my national assembly advisory group considered and recommended to me, and which was put to me by representatives of all political parties in the House. We have debated it, and I am genuinely trying to reflect the consensus that has developed around it.
I deal first with new clause 23. The assembly's functions will generally be exercisable by those to whom it delegates those functions. New clause 23 sets out the possible delegations—to Committees, which can include the Executive Committee, or to the First Secretary, and then to the Assembly Secretaries. The pattern of delegation of functions will determine the assembly's


decision-making style. If functions were predominantly to be delegated to subject Committees, a local government style of decision making would operate. However, if functions are predominantly delegated to the First Secretary and to the Executive Committee, something more akin to the Cabinet style will emerge.
As I said, my advisory committee has recommended a Cabinet style of decision making. I have accepted that advice, and the guidance that I shall give to the Standing Orders Commissioners will reflect that. The assembly's initial Standing Orders will incorporate a substantial delegation of functions to the Executive Committee and to the First Secretary. The assembly will therefore begin life with a delegation of functions consistent with a Cabinet model of operation. It would, however, be open to the assembly subsequently, if it wished, to change those Standing Orders and instead delegate functions to subject Committees, but that would be possible only with a two-thirds vote in favour of such a move.
New clauses 20 and 21 make new provision for the Executive Committee. The First Secretary is to appoint Assembly Secretaries, subject to a limit on numbers, to be prescribed in Standing Orders. I will seek advice from the advisory group on the maximum number of appointees, and I will listen to the comments that the right hon. Member for Devizes will doubtless make later this evening when he moves an amendment relating to the maximum number of Assembly Secretaries.
The Assembly Secretaries will be members of the Executive Committee, and the First Secretary will allocate portfolios among them, although not necessarily to all. There is provision for a limited number of non-portfolio Assembly Secretaries. Individual Assembly Secretaries will account to the assembly for their performance of functions which the assembly has delegated. New clause 21 makes provision for the questioning of Assembly Secretaries for that purpose.
The combination of an extensive delegation of functions to the Executive Committee and the First Secretary, and the appointment by the First Secretary of Assembly Secretaries and the allocation of portfolios among them, provide for the creation of a strong political centre for the assembly and meet the case made by Opposition parties.
Individuals will be clearly responsible and accountable for the assembly's decisions in particular areas of its work. That reflects the points made in the House, and by my advisory group, for a process of Executive decision making. This has been the subject of intense debate in Wales, and certainly the subject of strong representations to me and my colleagues in the Welsh Office by, among others, the CBI in Wales.
I have always made it clear that the Government's wish is to draw the best from both the Cabinet and local government models. The local government system allows for wide participation in the policy process. That is reflected in new clause 22, which makes new provision for subject Committees.
Under new clause 22, each Assembly Secretary with functional responsibilities will be a member of a subject Committee with responsibilities in the same area. The role of the all-party subject Committees will extend well beyond that of scrutiny of the Executive on the Westminster model. Thus, they could examine draft subordinate legislation, review policy outcomes and

propose policy initiatives, monitor the performance of public bodies in their spheres, and make recommendations feeding into the assembly's resource allocation process.
The Committees will work in partnership with the Assembly Secretaries, and will have a distinctive and important role to play in the assembly's policy process.

Mr. Dalyell: On the subject of resource allocations, in the Scottish context it is becoming clearer week by week that the proposals are vastly more expensive than anyone had imagined. What are the estimated costs of the changes in Wales? Are they all to be borne by the Welsh allocation, or do they come out of the UK allocation?

Mr. Davies: If my hon. Friend studies the Bill, he will see that the financial memorandum, which was discussed on Second Reading, makes clear the Government's estimates. On his substantive point, I confirm that any costs incurred as a result of the running of the assembly will, of course, be met out of the existing Welsh block.
I was talking about the role of the Committees in the assembly's policy process. It is a role that I believe can be achieved effectively only if, as we have provided, the Assembly Secretaries are members of the Committees and are actively involved with their work, rather than being external to them as in the classic Scrutiny Committee manner, which we see in the Select Committees in this place.

Mr. Nigel Evans: My question follows on from that asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Is it correct that the change to the Cabinet-style structure should not mean expenditure additional to that proposed in the first Bill?

Mr. Davies: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Does he have a more precise question as to where he thinks additional expenditure could arise? If so, I shall try to answer him.

Mr. Evans: It is a quite clear question, as the Prime Minister might say. Will the new structure be more expensive than the first structure that the Secretary of State announced'? Is it a more expensive system of local government for Wales?

Mr. Davies: I know that the hon. Gentleman has difficulty with some of the concepts involved, but it is not a local government system. We are proposing a new form of arrangement in Wales, which is based on the principle of devolution. If the hon. Gentleman considers carefully the case that he has submitted to me, and which I have broadly accepted, he will understand that there is nothing inherent in the proposals that could possibly affect the costs of the assembly. I have repeatedly said that the costs of running the assembly will be met out of the Welsh block.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: My understanding is that we are discussing a strategic set of amendments and new clauses which will shape how the assembly runs. Does the Secretary of State agree that


moving from the original proposals to the current ones involves what will ultimately be only marginal changes in costs?

Mr. Davies: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. The essence of the decision we had to take—a debate in which all parties involved themselves—was whether, in constructing the assembly, to opt for a form of decision making that was as inclusive as possible, or whether to put a premium on a decision-making process which was accountable and capable of making rapid decisions.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: rose

Mr. Davies: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could contain his enthusiasm. I am trying to deal with an intervention by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). Once I have done so, I shall certainly try to accommodate the hon. Gentleman.
One has to decide whether to construct an assembly that is as inclusive as possible and which seeks to produce a consensus, or whether to come up with something that is less than transparent. It is my understanding, based on the strong recommendations made to me by all political parties in Wales, that the assembly should have the capacity—I stress the word "capacity"; we are not prescribing or mandating it—to go for a Cabinet style, which would ensure the accountability of individual decision makers, and that it should have the capacity to make rapid decisions.

Mr. Grieve: The right hon. Gentleman must understand the thrust of the various questions, as they are perfectly straightforward. Clearly the costs will be met from the block grant, but I take it from what the Secretary of State has said that no one in the Welsh Office has suggested to him or his colleagues that the new system that is being devised will in reality be rather more expensive and take more money out of the block grant than the old. Is that so? It is the only question to which an answer is being sought, but I am bound to say that the Secretary of State did not provide one. Has anyone costed the new system?

Mr. Davies: I have already given the answer in reply to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), although I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has asked a rather more explicit question. I said that there was nothing inherent in the proposals that would lead to an increased cost.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: Yes—I suspect that I shall not be moving on for some time yet.

Mr. Wigley: I agree. My question relates not to the matter of cost, but to the relationship between the Assembly Secretary and the Committee itself. Given that a form of Cabinet system is being set up, am I right in interpreting that to mean that the Assembly Secretary would not be bound by a decision of the Committee; that he would be a member of the Committee and, if the
Committee voted in a way that overruled his policy, that vote would not change his policy; and that only if the assembly as a whole changed the policy of the Executive as a whole would the Executive have to change their policy? Is that interpretation correct?

Mr. Davies: I understand the reason why the right hon. Gentleman raises that question; unfortunately, I cannot give him a precise answer, because it will depend in part on the Standing Orders eventually adopted by the assembly, which will in part reflect the way in practice develops in the assembly, which practice will be influenced by the existence or absence of political control within the assembly. Let us assume that one party has overall control of the assembly, although that might not be a prospect that the right hon. Gentleman views with great relish—

Mr. Wigley: Oh, but I do.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I am perfectly relaxed about that prospect, too, although we might differ on which party that should be.
Let us assume for the purpose of argument that the assembly has one-party majority control. In those circumstances, one can reasonably assume that the subject Committees themselves would have one-party majority control, and that therefore there would be a majority on the Committee that was broadly supportive of the Assembly Secretary. If that was the case, or if there was a coalition, or in any other circumstances, the Assembly Secretary would have to carry the subject Committee with him or her.
If he or she failed to do so on a matter of—[Interruption.] I am addressing the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and I hope that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will have some regard for that. If the subject Committee found itself in conflict on a matter of principle with the Assembly Secretary who was a member of that Committee, there would a situation which presumably the First Secretary or the assembly itself would want to address, either by changing policy or by changing the Assembly Secretary. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has joined the proceedings, and I am sure that we are pleased to see him, but we are not doing anything other in the Chamber than debating the Government of Wales Bill.

Mr. Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can now get back to the point that I was making some time ago, which is the way in which the Assembly Secretaries will sit on subject Committees.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am sorry to detain the Secretary of State longer, but I want to follow up the line of questioning raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Will the Secretary of State carry his clarification just one step further?
If the subject Committee in question had already delegated functions to the Assembly Secretary, even if the Assembly Secretary was sitting on the subject Committee, and the subject Committee came to a conclusion contrary


to the policy established under that delegated authority by the Assembly Secretary, presumably that decision would be matter of academic interest only. Is that correct?

Mr. Davies: Yes, it is certainly a matter of academic interest.
What we are doing is providing for a strong political centre to emerge in the assembly. We are also making effective provision for all parties in the assembly to make their own distinctive contributions to its work through the subject Committees.
Finally, I refer to new clause 24. It was explained during Committee stage that we needed to make specific provision in the Bill for delegation of functions to staff, as it was not clear that the Carltona principle would apply in the context of the Assembly. New clause 24 simply makes it clear that any such delegation to staff will operate in accordance with the established principle that it is for the permanent secretary of the Department to manage departmental staff, and that he or she will decide which of the staff are actually to discharge any functions so delegated. New clause 24 therefore provides a worthwhile reinforcement of the position of assembly staff as civil servants, free from political interference.
New clauses 20 to 24 are important amendments that will have a major and beneficial effect on the business style of the Assembly and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Ancram: May I start, perhaps rather surprisingly in view of my earlier remarks, by welcoming the new clauses tabled by the Secretary of State? I do so because they are an attempt to meet some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Members earlier in the debate. I call them an attempt, because I am not yet certain that he has delivered what we were asking for.
Some of us tabled amendments earlier to create a Cabinet structure, because we believe that a Cabinet structure creates a clear line of accountability in a way that is not possible under a Committee structure. We believe also that it gives the electorate a clearer view of what they are actually electing than is possible under a Committee structure.
To summarise our arguments, we believe also that a Committee structure is more prone to being run by officials than is a Cabinet structure. When we heard last week that the Secretary of State was tabling new clauses in order to achieve a Cabinet structure, we welcomed that. I did so publicly and I do so again today, but only in so far as the right hon. Gentleman has gone.
I am little concerned that one of the concerns I expressed in an earlier debate has not been met. When we last debated this issue, I said:
I am surprised that the Government seem to have set about creating what I can only describe as a constitutional mule—it is neither one thing nor the other, neither local government nor the type of cabinet structure to which we are accustomed."—[Official Report, 2 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 750.]
The Secretary of State appears to have achieved the removal of that total ambiguity, but he has created two choices, so that we are still not certain whether what we end up with will be a Cabinet structure, or one based on the Committee structure that was originally in the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the amendments do not prescribe, but allow the assembly to decide. He went on to say, which I found even more puzzling, that it would

not be a question of a clear decision being taken on whether there would be either a Cabinet structure or a Committee structure, but that it would depend on the decisions of the assembly as to whether there would be predominantly a Cabinet structure or predominantly a Committee structure.
Only after those various decisions on what functions to delegate in which directions had been taken would we be able to say, "That is a Cabinet structure," or, "That is a Committee structure." We are certainly not able to say at this distance, in the words of the former President Bush, that, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck. In this case, it is going to be allowed to quack and bark at the same time, so we will not know whether the structure is a duck or a dog until the assembly has taken those decisions.

Mr. Ron Davies: If it quacks and barks, it will obviously be the product of a Ministry of Agriculture experimental farm.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that the Standing Orders under which the assembly will meet initially will prescribe a Cabinet system; however, it will subsequently be open to the assembly, if the two-thirds majority requirement is met, to change its method of operation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that is not unreasonable to allow the assembly to review and modernise its own internal procedures.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful for that explanation, but it is precisely because the provision appears to be the product of an experimental farm that I am questioning it a little more closely. I am not sure that the product of an experimental farm is what the right hon. Gentleman intended in terms of devolution for Wales.
Perhaps the Secretary of State can enlighten me, or tell me whether I am wrong, but my understanding of new clause 23 is that it allows the assembly to delegate functions in a number of different directions, and it is on the basis of how those functions are delegated and in terms of the primary legislation allowing the assembly to so delegate, not on the basis of the Standing Orders by means of which they may be delegated, that the decision will be taken whether there will be a Cabinet structure or a Committee structure.
That appears to be what new clause 23 provides, so it leaves the whole question still to be resolved. What is does not do is create the clear position that we sought of a Cabinet structure of the sort that we find, for example, within the Scotland Bill.
It is worth reminding the House that "The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Science" defines a Cabinet as
A form of government in which a group of ministers, usually drawn from the majority party or parties of a parliament, combine to make collective decisions about the country's Policies … Two points are central to the concept. First, the decisions of a cabinet are meant to be collective, not those of a single person; ministers are bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility publicly to support all the decisions taken by cabinet. Second, the cabinet acts as a political link between the executive and the parliament because ministers are answerable to the parliament.
If I read that right, one either has a Cabinet structure or one does not. One cannot have a series of functions being moved in different directions, which do not clearly meet those two points which are described as being central, and say, "On the balance of probabilities, this is


a Cabinet." However, that seems to be what new clause 23 would achieve. I should like to hear the Minister's response on the ambiguity and doubt that could be created.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up some of his own ambiguity and doubt? When he made these proposals to the Government, did he have any clear idea, for example, to whom the civil servants would be responsible? Are they to be responsible to the Welsh Cabinet structure, or to the home civil service? What was his view on that?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that we asked that question in connection with the structure of the Scottish Parliament. It does not arise from new clause 23, however. We are now considering whether the civil service in Wales will be responsible to the assembly as a whole, as was the case under the original legislation, or whether it will now be responsible to a Cabinet.
In fact, that makes may point rather well, because, if I read new clause 23 aright, we may end up with it being responsible for some functions to the assembly as a whole, and for other functions to members of what would be, effectively, a Cabinet. That lack of clarity, which the hon. Gentleman rightly points out is inherent anyway in the Bill, is exacerbated by the new clause. I wish to hear a response from the Secretary of State on that.

Mr. Ron Davies: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is no lack of clarity there. The assembly is a corporate body, and the functions that will be transferred will be transferred to it as a corporate body. It is then for the assembly to decide how it wishes those functions to be exercised.

Mr. Ancram: Intentionally or not, the right hon. Gentleman is again missing my point. I am saying that, if the assembly follows the route of new clause 23, and of what I understood him to say in his speech, it will not be a question of deciding whether there is a Cabinet; it will be a question of giving some functions to the Executive Committee, which would be along the lines of a Cabinet, and giving others to the subject Committees of the assembly, forming a Committee structure.
I say in all seriousness to the Secretary of State that that could be the undoing of the way the assembly works in future unless there is some more clarity on it.

Mr. Davies: I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman several times that I intend that the Standing Orders under the which the assembly meets for the first time will provide for a Cabinet system. It will be open, however, to the assembly, if it subsequently wishes, to revert to a different system. Nevertheless, I intend that, when the assembly meets for the first time, it will meet with a Cabinet system; that will be provided for in the standing orders.

Mr. Ancram: In that case, I ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. In new clause 23, which will be part of primary legislation, not the Standing Orders, does that mean that new clause 23(1)(a), which says:

The Assembly may delegate functions of the Assembly … to any committee of the Assembly",
will be operable only if the Standing Orders have been changed by a two-thirds majority at that time? Is he saying that that provision, which will be in primary legislation, is already qualified and pre-empted by non-primary legislative decisions that he will have taken in relation to the original standing orders? That places a very serious question mark over the meaning of the new clause. Either it is there to provide powers, or it is not.

Mr. Davies: New clause 23 is perfectly clear, and new clause subsection (1)(a) provides for the assembly to delegate its functions to any Committee of the assembly if it so wishes. That provision will be allowed for in the Standing Orders.

Mr. Ancram: In that case, this argument goes round and round. My original suggestion that we might have a bit of this and a bit of that and not know whether it was a duck or a dog is likely to come true. I say to the right hon. Gentleman in all seriousness, because I believe he is moving in the right direction, that he has left things dangerously open. I am afraid that it creates another area of uncertainty.
I do not want to be unduly unkind to him, but we are becoming used to the non-decisions of this Secretary of State. Will it be Swansea or Cardiff? Will it be Pier head or Bute square? Will it be a Cabinet or a Committee? We do not know. If the people of Wales are to have confidence in the devolution proposals, they should have a clearer idea of the answers to all those questions.

Mr. Öpik: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his anxieties would seem groundless if we were discussing the setting up of a new business? The more progressive management consultants would adopt the approach that the Government are taking, and allow the organisation to define its reporting structures. The Conservatives are advocating adherence to much more traditional, more rigid systems of government, more associated with old Westminster than with new Cardiff.

Mr. Ancram: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can relieve us both of our concerns, because I understand that, if the assembly is to operate as a business in this regard, it will first need a two-thirds majority to overcome the Standing Orders that he has said will direct it in a particular—what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) would call "old-fashioned"—way. We need to know the answers to those questions. That is one reason—I shall not trespass on this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—why I was worried that we did not have enough time in which to discuss this group of amendments. These are not minor or straightforward—

Mr. Ron Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is going round and round.

Mr. Ancram: I am going round and round because the new clause is circular, and it will take us round and round in circles.

Mr. Tim Collins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a further


confusion, which illustrates this point, inherent in new clause 22, on the system of subject Committees? For the past two decades, Cabinet government in this House has been balanced by accountability to cross-party Select Committees, usually acting unanimously. The subject Committees can hardly operate in that way if the person whom they are scrutinising is sitting on that Committee, asking questions with them and scrutinising the same evidence as them. Is that not another example of a quacking dog?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that example. He is absolutely right. He will notice that the amendments that we have tabled to new clause 22—amendments (a) to (j)—seek to meet that objection by renaming the subject Committees "Select Committees", so that they will operate as a Committee should operate under a Cabinet structure, like the Select Committees of the House. We are trying to bring clarity to what we consider to be a move in the right direction, which is not achieving what it set out to achieve.
Having made those points, on which I hope that we shall receive clarification from the Secretary of State because they are important, I shall briefly explain the amendments in the names of myself and my hon. Friends.
Our amendment (a) to new clause 20 would require the First Secretary to appoint one person as Financial Secretary and another as Business Manager. Our amendment (d) to new clause 21 would provide that neither be given responsibility for a specific field of policy. That is another constructive attempt to make more sense of the Cabinet structure, because we believe that, if a Cabinet is to work, there should be Ministers in the Cabinet who are not departmental Ministers but can look after the financial side. We know that a large sum of money—about £7 billion—is likely to be within the purview of the assembly. We believe that one Minister should be responsible for that.
We believe that there should be a Business Manager—a post along the lines of the Leader of the House—to ensure that business is properly pursued. That will make clear sense in the Cabinet structure, which is why we favour a Cabinet structure.
Amendment (b) to new clause 20 would prevent the First Secretary from appointing more than eight other Secretaries, including those two. The Secretary of State said that he looked forward to hearing me explain why we chose that number. There is no magic formula. There are 60 Members of the assembly. It seems to us that six departmental Ministers—a tenth of them—is generous.
Ministers currently on the Treasury Bench are carrying out all the functions that the six Secretaries plus the First Secretary will carry out. If the Secretary of State is in the place of the First Secretary at the moment, there are two hard-worked Ministers sitting next to him on the Front Bench whose work will now be undertaken by three Ministers each. That seems to be quite generous.
Although we know the skill and hard-working capabilities of the hon. Members for Neath (Mr. Hain) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), we believe that three other Welsh men or women should be able to undertake the work that they currently undertake. Therefore, it seems to us that the number six is about correct.
I have referred already to amendments (a) and (c) to (j) to Government new clause 22. They are designed genuinely to make sense of the Cabinet structure by having the Committees as Select Committees—

Mr. Robert Syms: What happens to the rest of the Welsh Office structure upon the appointments that we are discussing? It is implicit in the Bill that there will be a Secretary of State. Will there be junior Ministers supporting the Secretary of State, as well as the structure within the assembly?

Mr. Ancram: It is my understanding that, unless they apply for P45s fairly soon, they will find themselves without work once the Bill has passed through Parliament. We are told that the Secretary of State will continue in office. We have not been told that personally; we await the end of what might be called the right hon. Gentleman's coy period, when he will tell us whether he will stand for the assembly or remain with us in the House.
I find it difficult to believe one story I read—that the right hon. Gentleman would try to do both things. That would make nonsense of devolution. The right hon. Gentleman would be bound by the collective responsibility of the Cabinet in Westminster, which he would have to apply to the collective responsibility of the assembly's Cabinet. I think that we would all agree that that would be constitutional nonsense.
I fear that the role of Secretary of State will be severely downgraded by the nature of devolution. We have discussed that previously, and I am sure that the issue will be raised again in another place when these matters are further discussed.
Amendments (a) and (c) to (m) to Government new clause 21, and amendment No. 198 to clause 149, are designed simply to rename the Executive Committee the assembly Cabinet. I believe in calling a duck a duck or a dog a dog. When the Secretary of State makes up his mind—that is, if he does so in the direction that I hope he will—the amendments will make total sense. I therefore hope that he will be prepared to accept them.

Dr. Marek: I shall make a quick intervention or, perhaps, a short speech. I did not intend to do so but earlier I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the amendments that I have tabled on the responsibilities and loyalty of the civil service. I would not say that he brushed off my intervention, but he said that I could make my own points. I now propose to do so.
On those matters, I have considerable sympathy with the Opposition Front Bench. It would seem that they have not been thought through very carefully. For me, the problem is deciding where civil servants owe their loyalty. We know that civil servants, including permanent secretaries, meet all the time. They probably meet regularly once a week. The head of the National Assembly of Wales civil service will continue, I am sure, to meet heads of the civil service in the different Departments in Westminster. I am sure also that he or she will continue to do so once a week.
Furthermore, if there are problems within the civil service—I do not know the code in detail but there are procedures whereby problems are raised at a higher and higher level—at the end of the day, the person who carries


the can is the secretary to the Cabinet, the head of the home civil service. That is the head of the Cabinet here for the Westminster Government, not for the assembly.
I happen to believe that, if a body has servants, those servants should owe loyalty to that body. Under a system of Committee government, that could have worked. The home civil service could have staffed the entire assembly. However, when we move to a Cabinet form of government, surely there must be servants whose primary duty is not to the Executive Committee or to the Westminster Government. There must be servants of the assembly whose loyalty is to non-executive members of that assembly, in much the same way as we have Clerks of Select Committees. We have also Clerks to the House of Commons. Until a few years ago, the Comptroller and Auditor General was a Government employee, but the previous Administration rightly changed the nature of that employment so that the Comptroller and Auditor General is paid for out of House of Commons voted money and owes his or her loyalty—in this instance, his—to the House.
I do not think that we can set up a system where a Back-Bench Member of the assembly will have no servants of that assembly to whom he or she can turn. It is an important issue, and I do not think that the Government have thought it through. There should be officers of the assembly and my amendments—no doubt they are imperfect, and there is no need for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say that that is the position, if he comments upon those matters before the guillotine comes down at 7.30 pm—Nos. 231 to 233 illustrate the point. I hope that they will be taken up in another place if Members there see that there is merit in them.
Codes of practice are dealt with in new clause 29, which I tabled. It must be right that further consideration is given to codes of practice. Let us suppose that there is a difference of opinion between the national assembly and its Executive, the Executive Committee and the Cabinet in Westminster. How will that issue be resolved if the loyalty and codes of practice of civil servants—Her Majesty's home civil service—rest ultimately with the head of that civil service, who is Secretary to the Cabinet and the senior civil servant here in Westminster, whose loyalty is to the Westminster Government?
5.45 pm
I do not think that the issue has been thought through. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may try to brush it away or under the carpet. I am not being rude to him, but I ask him to consider the matter. It is an important matter that needs to be clarified. It is important that officers of the national assembly should be servants of the national assembly in just the same way as the Clerks and officers of the House of Commons are servants of Westminster Back-Bench Members.
I do not want to speak for a long time because I appreciate that this will be a short debate. I have said what I wanted to say and I do not intend to amplify my remarks. As I have said, we are discussing an important matter.

Mr. Öpik: Throughout the many days of consideration of the Bill, we have complained that Ministers and the Government generally have not listened to various of our suggestions. Now, it has come as something of a surprise

and a delight that the Government have made such a substantial effort to try to take on board points made by the Opposition. Slowly but surely, the Secretary of State is beginning to recognise the enormous value of the Liberal Democrats as the constitutional gurus in this place. I applaud that unequivocally.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman's modesty knows no bounds.

Mr. Öpik: Indeed. Our constitutional prowess is second only to our humility.
My colleagues and I welcome the general thrust of the block of amendments that is before us. It has been interesting to listen to the concerns that have been raised by other hon. Members, which have been mainly about the confusion between whether it is a Cabinet structure or a Committee structure. As I tried to say earlier in a brief intervention, I do not see that this is a problem.
In modern management systems analysis, it has become clear that some of the best organisations, in ascertaining for themselves how they operate—slightly intuitive, slightly trial and error—come to the conclusion that, if they trust the individuals who are running those systems and consider them to be responsible and bright, they can trust them also to define what would be the best system for them to operate.
In that context, we must make the assumption that the good people of Wales will elect 60 responsible individuals who will be capable of making the right decisions. It is an exciting experiment, not a dangerous one, to allow the Welsh assembly to define its processes to such a degree.

Mr. John Hayes: As a constitutional guru, how would the hon. Gentleman answer the charge that, despite what he said about talented and bright individuals, the purpose of a constitution is to put in place institutions, conventions and rules that will control the excesses of individuals? A constitutional guru would surely recognise that. Perhaps he will point to a serious organisation, a state or a system of government where the constitution does not put in place such safeguards.

Mr. Öpik: I shall happily ask one of my colleagues to put together a seminar, at no cost, to the official Opposition so that we might discuss those matters at greater depth. However, to answer the hon. Gentleman's question briefly, as I try always to answer direct questions, the purpose of having a constitution is not to regulate every detail of process but to facilitate an outcome or result. We all want the assembly to work, but that does not mean that we must define in minute detail exactly how it will choose to structure itself any more than a company manager would need to define in detail how all staff members choose to operate in order to deliver a result.

Mr. Hayes: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way twice. He has replied to my first question by referring to businesses. I do not know whether he has a background in business or industry, but I spent a long time in that sector. Companies do not have constitutions, because they are not subject to the pressures


that I described. Business institutions do not have to have public safeguards in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. That is a totally inappropriate analogy.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman and I can agree to differ. As ever, I find myself mentioning Procter and Gamble. As far as I know, that company has no intention of governing Wales or any other part of the world. Nevertheless, it must achieve specific outcomes. It must secure a profit for its shareholders and, in the same way, the Welsh assembly must secure a profit for its stakeholders who, in this case, are the people of Wales.
We are dealing very much in analogies. It is perfectly correct for hon. Members to question the legitimacy of making a comparison between business and politics. However, I suggest that, if we are to be progressive and to take the best of Westminster and leave behind the worst elements—

Mr. Hayes: We do not want to leave Westminster.

Mr. Öpik: I am sure that the people of Wales welcome the hon. Gentleman's decision. If we are to look at politics in a different way—

Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to stand for the assembly?

Mr. Öpik: That is a rather puerile intervention. I have said many times that I have no intention of standing for the assembly because my work at Westminster is not yet completed.
I believe that my analogy of business and politics is quite robust. Those who seek to find fault with taking the best from modern business structures contradict the basic ethos of the Welsh assembly. The assembly's goal is to govern the United Kingdom differently and to be courageous enough to believe that there is perhaps a more effective form of government than the somewhat tired processes that occasionally find us moribund in this Chamber at 6 am. As far as I am concerned, the analogy of the quacking dog is not necessarily a bad one. However, I define the Welsh assembly as a barking eagle: it should soar above Wales and survey the problems while retaining the capacity to defend Welsh territory against those who may not be so supportive of its endeavours. In summarising my first point, I implore those who seek to detract from the hybrid nature of a Cabinet-cum-Committee structure to think bigger. Let us see how it goes, and let us be grateful that the new structure proposed in this block of amendments will allow the assembly to make course corrections as it discovers what works and what does not.
There is one caveat: the relationship between the Assembly Secretaries and the subject Committees must be very effective. That is the most important element of the relationships in all the assembly structures. We favour allowing the Assembly Secretaries to have clear roles in terms of not just conveying messages to the Committees but being advocates for the Committees by conveying information to the Cabinet. If that works, we shall be on to a very good thing.

Dr. Marek: I agree entirely that the national assembly should be able to see its way forward. However, it is

written in primary legislation that every civil servant must be a member of the home civil service. Therefore, the assembly will not be able to feel its way in that area if anything goes wrong.

Mr. Öpik: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's contribution and I think that he has raised a genuine concern. I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State's response, as—without labouring the point—I think that all hon. Members share that concern.

Mr. Wigley: Taking up that thread, the hon. Gentleman may recall that the legislation that came before the House in the 1970s—which became the Wales Act 1978 and was defeated in a referendum—proposed an integrated public service in Wales. The Government have moved away from that position. It might be interesting to know the logic behind that decision, as the proposal would have created an embryo civil service in Wales that was answerable to Wales.

Mr. Öpik: That is a very lucid expansion of the point raised earlier by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek). It would be helpful to hear the Secretary of State's view on the matter, and I hope that he will return to it in his summation.
I shall briefly summarise the aims of the Liberal Democrat amendments. They would make several important changes with regard to limiting the delegation of functions. We do not wish to see a huge number of political functions delegated to non-elected members. We believe that only administrative duties should be delegated to assembly staff. We recognise that there is another view on the matter, but we believe that the new clause is too broad. There should be more restrictions on the functions that may be transferred.
The other point of our amendments is to create three categories of staff: parliamentary, political and executive. In essence, those distinctions would be useful in preventing staff members from being pressured to perform inappropriate functions not related to their roles. That aim ties in with our other amendments.
I shall deal now with the amendments tabled by others. Allowing the assembly to confirm decisions to appoint Assembly Secretaries is an interesting concept, and I look forward to hearing the argument in defence of that position. I believe that that proposal would be too prescriptive and would fly in the face of the course that I advocated earlier in allowing the first assembly to follow etiquette in that area.
New clause 21 allows for Secretaries without Portfolio. I can understand the rationale behind that proposal, but that phrase makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. I sincerely hope that, if a Secretary without Portfolio were appointed, we should not see the construction of a Swansea dome as compensation for not siting the assembly in that city. Incidentally, if such a dome were built, I hope that the Lord Chancellor would not be responsible for its interior decoration.
New clause 22 sensibly provides for a clearly defined Cabinet structure. The relationship between Committees and Cabinet may be complex, but the Cabinet will be quite easy to set up. I cannot imagine that the assembly will wrangle over that point.
My final point responds to earlier comments made in the debate. I was concerned to hear the Secretary of State say that, if one party has an overall majority, that majority must be replicated across the Committees. That does not follow the principle of inclusivity, which we have discussed so much in the context of the assembly.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman is a keen advocate of the Cabinet system, but the Cabinet is not inclusive, either.

Mr. Öpik: There is no reason to believe that the Cabinet should necessarily comprise only one party. If we are serious about taking advantage of proportional representation and its manifestations, we should recognise that this is an opportunity to get the best from the various parties—new and old—that are likely to be represented in the first assembly. I encourage the Secretary of State to provide an assurance that he will at least consider allowing the First Secretary the latitude to give significant responsibilities to minority parties.

Mr. Grieve: That may be an expression of hope, and surely that is all that it can be. Representation and such matters will be decided by the assembly. Conservative Members strongly suspect that the inclusivity and the holistics about which we have heard a great deal may be rather more absent than present. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is not much point in Conservative Members going on about representation in the assembly, because the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

6 pm

Mr. Öpik: There may be some point in Conservative Members going on about representation. The Welsh people are magnanimous, and we have agreed to a proportional representation system that might allow Conservative Members back into Welsh politics. We expect no thanks for that, but we expect maturity from any Conservatives who are elected to the assembly. Members of the assembly from all parties must act responsibly and co-operatively if the assembly is to be a progressive development from the Westminster Parliament.
Still, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) may be right, and our hopes may be dashed by the first assembly. If it seeks to impose one-party-rule attitudes, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) will have been deceived.

Mr. Evans: Where is the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend is in his constituency swapping views about this very debate, and will join us shortly. Had we not had a privatised rail network, he would have been here already.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield was right to make the crucial point about representation, which hangs on the question of whether the ruling party, should there be one, will have the maturity and self-confidence to allow other parties to hold significant responsibilities. We must wait and see.
We had a tactical debate about the additional cost of a Cabinet structure. Surely we can all agree to the small on-cost, or perhaps even the small on-saving, of a Cabinet structure, if it is the strategically correct government structure. A Cabinet structure will not have a major effect on the cost of running the assembly. I hope that we shall not descend to whingeing about prices when we should be planning the future decision-making body for an entire nation.
My last point concerns positive thinking. It is always easy to condemn a structure that is not yet operating, but it is better to ask how a body can be made to work. As long as we are reasonably confident that we are within 10 per cent. of the right structure, we must believe that the rest will be achieved by responsible assembly Members who will have great enthusiasm and an enormous interest in making the first assembly work.
The Cabinet-Committee structure, which has been advocated by the three Opposition parties, will provide an excellent opportunity to see how high is up. Britain should look beyond the old structures inhabited by Westminster Members of Parliament to new structures that will allow Wales to spread its wings and prove that it can be a world player with a truly up-to-date democratic system.

Mr. Rowlands: I must tell the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) that I have not managed to call my nation or my constituency a company in 30 years in Parliament. I do not believe in using that term in such a way, and I do not believe in the values associated with it. The management-speak that poured from the hon. Gentleman is not appropriate to arguments about how we shall be governed under the new arrangements in the Welsh assembly.
Over the past 20 years, too many of our services have been gripped by management-speak. Some people believe that it can be crudely applied to the concept of service. That is a worthy concept, which is worth standing up and fighting for. It is a privilege to represent people. Management-speak books do not contain such words, but I hope that we find them in politics and in the Welsh assembly.

Mr. Öpik: I am sorry to intervene after making a lengthy contribution, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the words "integrity" and "service" are at the core of almost every successful multinational organisation?

Mr. Rowlands: Many features of multinational corporations are unlikely to exemplify those virtues. No, the hon. Gentleman's assumption is not right.
I shall address most of my remarks to amendment (c), but shall first speak to new clause 20. The Bill and I are not destined to get on. I vigorously defended the original clause on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, only to find that the persuasive qualities of the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists—clearly not those of Labour Members—brought about a change.
I am grappling with the changes, and am trying to understand and appreciate them. The alteration of the wording caused me a bit of a problem. Will there be a Cabinet-style approach, which was mentioned in a press release; a Cabinet-style process of decision making, to use


my right hon. Friend's words; or a Cabinet system, which was mentioned in debate? The Opposition amendments propose a straightforward Cabinet. We have had a great deal of time to think in the past 12 or 14 hours, especially in the small hours.
I am at sea on those issues, so I went not to management-speak, but to Walter Bagehot's classic definition of the constitution. He said:
A cabinet is a combining committee—a hyphen which joins, a buckle which fastens the legislative part of the state to the Executive part of the state.
If that is a valid description of a Cabinet, I cannot for the life of me see why the Opposition are pressing so vigorously for a Cabinet structure in the Welsh assembly, especially as they do not support a formal legislative function. The definition is old-fashioned and beautifully written; it also has an authentic feel. If the assembly is not to be a legislative body, why try vigorously to implant or impose on that new democratic institution a Cabinet structure of the sort that would be provided by the Opposition amendments? New clause 20 also moves some way towards such a structure.

Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman says that the assembly will not be a legislative body. Did I hear him correctly? Will not the assembly be legislative, albeit through passing secondary legislation?

Mr. Rowlands: The assembly will have a subordinate legislative function, but we should not get sidetracked because the issue has been debated at considerable length.
Throughout the debates and throughout the referendum campaign, the point was sturdily made that we are not constructing a Welsh assembly with the power to pass primary legislation of the kind and character to which Bagehot referred when talking of the legislative state.
We fail to remind ourselves of what the Welsh assembly is supposed to do. Its fundamental function is to allocate a block grant of £7 billion—a large sum of money—according to what it decides are the priorities and needs of the Welsh people. Distribution of expenditure does not necessarily have to be decided under a Cabinet system. The nature of the Welsh assembly's fundamental function means that secret, closed Cabinet decision-making is unnecessary. The whole idea of devolution and the setting up of a Welsh assembly was to introduce openness and to have all the options up and running, not closed down, one by one, by Cabinet Ministers and Executive Committees that would filter decision making. I thought that the idea of the new politics of devolution was to move away from that process, but there is a hankering to return to the old-style Westminster system of Cabinet decision making.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman's speech is compelling and lucid. He says that the Cabinet binds the Executive and the legislature. He has made it clear that the assembly will have a legislative role, albeit a reduced one, and that the Executive will also have a role. Without the structure that Cabinet provides, how would he link those two roles?

Mr. Rowlands: The buckle that joins the assembly to Westminster and Whitehall has nothing to do with the internal decision-making process in the assembly. That

link is supposed to be through the Secretary of State and concordats. If we manage to debate the concordats, I hope that that will be brought out. Sadly, we shall not debate the role of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman's point is irrelevant in this context, because there are other instruments for the function that he describes. Whether they can do it is another matter.
I did not want the assembly to have an old-fashioned local government structure. Equally, I do not want an old-fashioned Cabinet structure. I do not know whether the new clauses have created a hybrid or a hydra, but it seems that a third way is being sought. It has been found for economic policy and it is now to be in constitutional policy. Unfortunately, at the moment it is a rather convoluted and confused way to decide where we are going.
Nowhere in the White Paper or in the first draft of the Bill is there a reference to a permanent secretary. Why has one suddenly emerged in new clause 24? Oddly enough, the new clause states:
(whether or not that person is known by the title of Permanent Secretary to the Assembly).
Has the term been introduced to try to give the assembly the smack of old Westminster to satisfy those who have been pressing for a Welsh Government?
Above all, I question the Minister's reason for the change. In the press release and, I think, in his opening speech, he said:
People want decision-making arrangements which provide for identified individuals to be clearly accountable to the public for particular decisions.
The new structure is supposed to provide that. Cabinet-style Government is much more collective in its decision-making process, and a permanent secretary who derives his authority from the role that he may claim in a subject committee is likely to have a perfectly identical profile. I cannot envisage many wallflowers in Welsh politics. I am not sure what the Minister meant or why he thinks that his alternative system will make people more identifiable. They will be identifiable when the First Secretary hires or fires them. That will raise their profiles.
6.15 pm
Why are we slavishly trying to return to tight, collective decision making? When one person is given the right to hire and fire, sooner or later a collective system of government will emerge. Instead of following a career in the assembly and in working with the Committees, people will follow the patronage system with which we are familiar. I have been a beneficiary of that, and understand it as well as anybody. There will be a plethora of Secretaries, the equivalent of Ministers, and there will be shadow Secretaries. When that happens, the new assembly will have returned to the world of personal patronage. I thought that devolution was more and better than that.

Mr. Grieve: I sympathise with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. He spoke about a hybrid or hydra. Has not the Secretary of State engaged in hype? The assembly will be toothless in relation to its officials. We face a dilemma. The early system seemed to offer no government for Wales, but the system that has been adopted could be criticised for not being much different


from the Westminster one, which would allow the assembly to control officials. Without that, there is no control.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not think that it is hype. It has more substance, I would not spend time making my case. It is a significant and important change. It shifts the nature and balance of the assembly's chemistry, and its politics will be altered by the changes. That is clear from an examination of the first secretary's role. He will have power to hire and fire. In the press release and in other statements, the Minister was at pains to explain that the Assembly Secretaries will have an important role in the Committees and that that will in no way lead to a downgrading of the Committees.
It is stated that each Assembly Secretary will have to work in partnership with the all-party subject Committee of which he or she is the leader. If one of a Secretary's major functions is to relate to an all-party subject Committee, surely our amendment (c) should apply. If the First Secretary seeks to sack that person, the Committee on which he sits should be asked to approve the dismissal. We should at least slightly temper what is otherwise a good old-fashioned return to a full-scale system of patronage in the hands of the First Secretary, who will rapidly become the Prime Minister or Premier. I understand the difficulties of finding the third way, but we must develop institutional structures that will reflect what we hope will be the new politics of devolution and not the old-fashioned politics to which so many of the clauses and Opposition amendments would like to return.

Mr. Wigley: I am glad of the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). He described the Westminster Cabinet system, which is the type of system that generally operates in most central Governments, comparing it with the local government system and speaking about old-style local government. As he knows, I was a councillor on just such an old-style authority in Merthyr Tydfil. Anyone who says that that was an open, inclusive system of government is talking through their hat. Those in opposition—and, I suspect, sometimes Labour members of that authority—were kept in the dark most of the time about what was going on.
Therefore, I do not think that the argument is between local government and central Government-type systems. The argument is how we achieve the most effective system from the proposals that are before the House, which will, I hope, serve Wales well.
As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has said, I approach the subject from the view that we should take more power from Westminster and have a central Government-type system in Wales, so I welcome the Government's move. Not only have we been pressing for it, but, in strategic terms, it is important: it gives better coherence.
I accept that getting quick decisions is a managerial consideration, but we must consider what sometimes happens in local government and the delays in decision making even in new local government, which can be astronomical, hampering leaders' ability to take decisions. The proposal will facilitate quicker decision taking. Provided that there is proper answerability, this system can be made to work.
I intervened earlier on the question of answerability. What is the relationship between the Secretary and the Committee on which he or she serves as a member? I do not think that we have properly thought that through. Perhaps that was the Government's intention—to leave flexibility for the assembly itself to think it through—but the Committee needs at least some initial guidelines, so that both the commission that is working at present and the assembly know the framework within which the Committee will initially work.
I am a little at a loss to know how exactly the Secretary will relate to the Committee. He or she may be a member of the Committee and sit on it. It may behave similarly to a Select Committee, before which a Minister appears from time to time to answer for the policies being pursued. To start with, Select Committee members sit around in private to discuss the questioning of the Minister—who will say what the main points to be followed are. That will be difficult in the Welsh assembly if the Minister is a member of the Committee that will do the cross-questioning.
Will the Committee draw up the strategy and priorities within that Department's remit? If so, will the Minister be obliged to argue that case from the bottom up, as it were, in what will effectively be the Cabinet—the Executive Committee—or will he impose the policies from the centre down and have only to answer before the Committee? If that is the case, it is difficult to see that the Secretary will genuinely be a member of the Committee. He or she will come to the Committee—and certainly relate to it—but will not necessarily answer to it and be a member of a body that has developed the policy.
There is the question of the Committee's sanction against the Secretary. If the Committee feels that the priorities which it has determined, and which it believes the Secretary has been espousing and advocating within Cabinet, have not been genuinely put forward—perhaps the Secretary has deliberately not followed the Committee's line—does the Committee have the sanction of removing the Secretary?
I understand that one could argue that that should be a matter for the entire House. I should like to take up the point on which the Secretary of State intervened. Although the governing party may have an overall majority in the assembly—and although that majority will be reflected in the membership of the working Committees—that does not mean that every member of a Committee does not have his or her own opinion. The balance of feeling within a Committee may be different from the balance of feeling in the Cabinet and assembly as a whole.
The Committee may therefore want to follow a different line from that being pursued by the Cabinet. It may concentrate on one issue and not relate it to the other issues that the Cabinet or Executive Committee has to consider in parallel, not least in terms of resources. I am not sure whether we have fully understood the balance between answerability and being inter pares—advocating what the Committee wants in the Executive Committee.
There is the question of the balance within the Committees themselves. I accept that the balance in the Committees can be only that within the assembly; it could not be anything else. That is as good as anything that we, as a minority party, could want, although we, like other parties, aspire to being a majority party some time in the Welsh assembly.
The Chairs of the Committees could be powerful people, as those who chair Select Committees sometimes are: one thinks of the tremendous work of Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee. A Chair can be almost as powerful as a Minister—at least in terms of scrutiny, he or she is powerful. There will be an interesting relationship between the Chair and the Secretary, but they may not be of the same party; presumably, there will be a sharing of the Chairs. If they are not of the same party, do problems arise in terms of proper answerability and the working relationship that is necessary to allow quick and effective decision making? There could be a conflict between the two.
I welcome the new clauses. More work will need to be done on them. As we are on Report, this is clearly a matter for another place. I would much rather that it had happened here, but questions still need to be answered before we can say what amendments need to be tabled. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Secretary of State will deal with some of them.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I was saddened, although not critical of the fact, that, in the face of the weight of the establishment forces in Wales ranged against him—the advisory committee, which is taken from the great and the good in Wales, the Conservative party, the nationalist party and the Liberal Democrats—the Secretary of State has moved away from what was in the Bill originally. Various people criticised what was in the Bill, saying that it contained a local government model, as if that were wholly bad.
In fact, it was not a local government model. I thought that the draftsman, or whoever instructed the draftsman, drew up an elegant model in the Bill, which lay somewhere between the local government model and a type of Cabinet system. I thought that it was well done, but my right hon. Friend has no doubt been pressurised. Whether he is actually happy with the direction in which he is moving, I do not know, but he certainly has moved.
I took a note of what my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of his speech. He said that it was a "Cabinet-style process of decision-making." By the time he had concluded, it was going to be a Cabinet. Indeed, he made it clear that, once the procedures were drawn up, it would be a Cabinet.
Let us make no bones about it: it will be a Cabinet and it will meet in secret. Ministers of the Cabinet, whether they have portfolios or not, will have red boxes or perhaps red and green boxes—I am not sure what the appropriate colour might be for this inclusivity or hybridity. They will have motor cars. Just as years ago the National Union of Mineworkers sometimes mirrored the coal owners and the coal owners sometimes mirrored the NUM, so the Welsh assembly will mirror Westminster in almost every form.
We are to have at least one permanent secretary. I am sure that there will be more than one. There will be a second permanent secretary. Indeed, when I was at the Treasury, there were four second permanent secretaries and, beneath them, there were deputy permanent secretaries. no doubt there will be deputy permanent secretaries and second permanent secretaries and they will each talk to the next layer up. We will have the whole system.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) told us about multinational companies and his great experience of them. When it came to money, he was very cavalier—

far more cavalier than a treasurer of a multinational company would be—and said that the Cabinet-type system might cost a little more. Of course it will, but we must remember that that money comes out of the budget: it comes out of money for hospitals and schools, so he had no right to be cavalier about it. It is not additional money that can come from somewhere else, wherever it can be found. So a Westminster structure will cost more money. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has succumbed to pressure to take that route.
We are talking partly about secrecy. Those of us who have been round the course before—in 1978–79—felt that one reason for having a Welsh assembly was that the Welsh budget or allocation of money to Wales could never be debated on the Floor of the House as time did not allow for it. It was debated within the Welsh Office by civil servants and Ministers and, in most cases, proper decisions were reached. I make no criticism of that. However, there was no open debate of the allocation of funds to Wales; it was all done behind closed doors. Once we have moved to the black cars, the red boxes, the permanent secretaries, the Cabinets, the Premiers, the Chief Ministers and the First Secretaries, we will replicate exactly the same procedure.
6.30 pm
Matters related to the allocation of funds will not be discussed in public because of commercial confidentiality or because there will be too many pressures. So it will all be decided by Ministers, with or without portfolio, sitting in Cardiff or wherever, making decisions behind closed doors.

Mr. Letwin: As always, the right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech. Does he agree that the result to which he is alluding will arise because the concomitant of Cabinet Government—procedures for debating money Bills, budgets and so on—is not proposed for the Welsh assembly? So we have only half the package.

Mr. Davies: Yes, but I am addressing my remarks to what we have—Executive devolution. Although I appreciate that there may be secondary legislation, the basic intention was to establish a body that would distribute the money that the Treasury allocates to the Welsh Office—mainly in secret. I make no criticism of Ministers, as that is the process. The money is then distributed to various sectors. The rate support grant is decided partly in public and allocated to housing and education. That is the nature of the beast. My hope was that at least that debate would take place in the open. I hope that I am wrong and that that will still happen, but I suspect that it will not once the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has his trappings of power.
Indeed—who knows?—Perhaps the Ministers without portfolio will become Privy Councillors. Perhaps they will all be kissing hands and generally acquiring all the trappings of Westminster power. However, once that is set in motion, the nature of Government being what it is, everything will be decided in secret.
All the other members of the assembly will be sitting around without very much to do. Like Government Back Benchers, they will be expected to approve the third way


or whatever. We are here to facilitate—to make sure that, once the third way has been decided on, it will be carried out.

Mr. Ron Davies: My right hon. Friend could have fooled me.

Mr. Davies: My right hon. Friend is amused. He should not take me too far on this issue, as he knows that we all subscribe 100 per cent. to the third way, despite the fact that occasionally we like to please ourselves and debate a few of the commas and full stops. Basically, we are all here to ensure that the third way proceeds easily.
Most members of the assembly will be there to do the bidding of the Chief Minister, the First Secretary, the permanent secretaries and all the trappings of Westminster Government that, sadly, we are now transplanting or adding to the Welsh assembly.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who likes to appear as a moderniser, is in the vanguard with the traditionalists. He wants a Westminster model, as do the Welsh nationalists. I understand the purpose of the nationalists. They want to create the trappings of a state. It is a state that does not raise enough money to keep itself going, but we shall discuss that in other debates.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend has succumbed, but even a man of his iron will sometimes has to bend and, on this occasion, I am afraid that my right hon. Friend is bending.

Mr. Leigh: I very much agree with what the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has just said. The longer the debate proceeds, the more worried people should become. The Secretary of State's opening speech was very short. The proposal has appeared somewhat late in the day. I understand the reason for it—to create a clear sense of responsibility. I can see where it is coming from.

Mr. Ron Davies: It is coming from the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Leigh: Yes, but I am also entitled to speak for myself. That may be a strange concept to the Labour party, but I am not put up against the wall by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and told what to say.
We have had a loose discussion about the Cabinet style of Government. However, it is a term of art that has developed over many centuries. It originally grew out of the King's Privy Council. The Cabinet was a fundamentally secretive body, a function of Executive government because it had to be. It was concerned with the King's business and issues of war and peace. However, I thought that in the Welsh assembly we sought to create something very different. That is why I echo the words of the right hon. Member for Llanelli who spoke from the Back Benches, not the Front Bench.
I am concerned that, sadly, in our own Chamber, because the Executive is drawn out of the legislature, people's primary ambition is to join the Executive. Therefore, more often than not, they will follow the party line on pretty well every occasion. The process has developed to a sophisticated degree.
When the Americans were trying to organise their new constitution, they wisely decided that the Executive should be entirely separate from the legislature. Therefore, Congressmen are entirely independent. I am concerned that we are now replicating in the Welsh assembly the worst aspects of what happens in the House.

Mr. Letwin: I am following my hon. Friend's line of logic. Does he not agree that something much worse is being done? The very safeguards that we have in the House—my hon. Friend may regard them as too slight, but they exist none the less—in the form of positive debate of legislation and money Bills are precisely what is not being offered by the Secretary of State in respect of the Welsh assembly.

Mr. Leigh: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Therefore, the concentration of power in the Welsh Assembly may be much more serious than what has developed in the Westminster Parliament in the past 200 years. Anyone who approaches the matter with any seriousness should be extremely worried about that.
Let us consider what is likely to happen. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the Labour party becomes the governing party in the assembly and has an overall majority. Let us assume that the current Secretary of State becomes the First Secretary. He would have enormous power, so it is not surprising that he is considering carefully whether to take up that position. He would appoint his own Cabinet. Members of the Cabinet will not be separated from the Parliament or the legislature as they are here. They will not have to persuade the Parliament from a separate point of view; they will be embedded in its structure and sit on the Committees.
Surely any self-respecting member of the majority party in the assembly will want to be a Secretary or a Minister and want to join the First Secretary's team. The First Secretary will appoint the Secretaries and they will be embedded into the Committee structure. Where will be the honest, open debate? As the right hon. Member for Llanelli said, speaking from the Back Benches, the assembly will develop a culture of secrecy and rule by a single party.
The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that, when he was on Merthyr Tydfil council, he felt that there was some secrecy on that body. I quite understand. Most of us were involved in local government before being elected to Parliament. The advantage of local government is that, because it is an administrative body, councillors sit on committees and elect a chairman. There is more sense of audience—member—participation in local government committees than there is in our governmental structures in this place, where ordinary Back Benchers exercise very little power.
What worries me, therefore, is that we are embedding in the new assembly—we hoped that it would develop a third way—all the worst aspects of our centralised government structures. We should think twice before setting off down that road.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Several speeches this evening have highlighted the fact that there is now a problem with the legislation. We need to resolve it or to gain an undertaking that it will be resolved in another place. The problem is that, in moving away from


the proposals of the referendum and the White Paper—at the request of the three Opposition parties and on the advice of the advisory committee—the Secretary of State has opted for a Cabinet-oriented system of government as his preferred choice. He has said, subject to the legislation proceeding in the Government's desired manner, that the Welsh Assembly will open using a Cabinet-style model—but that it will not have to follow that model. It can, in fact, revert to the original proposals in the first draft of the Bill as it reached the House a few months ago. That model was a Committee-style model, subject to two-thirds majorities and so on.
The problem with commencing with a Cabinet-style model but allowing the assembly to opt for a Committee-style model later is that other consequential changes will need to be made to the Bill to make it consistent from day one. Had the Secretary of State done things the other way round, there would have been fewer problems. Starting with a Committee-style model would not necessitate so many consequential changes.
The real problem is that the Secretary of State has expressed a preference for a Cabinet-style model from day one, but without the consequential changes. If we start by making a distinction between Front and Back Benchers, certain consequences will flow from that. Indeed, they lie behind my new clause 32 and new schedule 1. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has pointed out, an assembly separate from the Executive will need a Clerk and a separate staff to protect the interests of Back Benchers and to give them advice on drafting amendments and obtaining information not supplied by the Government or the civil service. That is the reasoning behind new clause 33, which has the same purpose as the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham.
Amendment no. 250 would amend clause 1 of the Bill, to drop the expression
The Assembly shall be a body corporate".
No such reference is to be found in the Bill setting up the Scottish Parliament, which is referred to simply as the Scottish Parliament. The Welsh assembly, however, is referred to as a body corporate. That is fine if we follow the Committee model but not if we follow the Cabinet model, which would give rise to a distinction between the Executive, run by the Cabinet, and the legislature—the quasi-parliamentary body which is to challenge, and occasionally change, what Front Benchers want to do. That is the whole point of Back Benchers, after all.
We do not need the expression "a body corporate", any more than the Scottish Bill needs it. The Scotland Bill does not define the legal status of the Scottish Parliament. In a sense, all parliaments are sui generis, so it is pointless defining their legal status. If the Executive and the legislature are to be separated, there is no need to call the legislature a body corporate. I would argue that the expression should be omitted from the Bill.

Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman makes his points with great force. Does he agree that there is at least one further issue of equal magnitude: the question of clause 66, which would permit the so-called Cabinet to arrogate to itself the power to legislate, leaving the assembly only the ability to pray a negative resolution? So on the first day of meeting, the assembly could delegate all powers of legislation to the Cabinet and never reconvene, provided that it never prayed a negative resolution.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful for that intervention. I cannot say that I had intended to cover the subject later in my speech, because I had not. Indeed, I had not spotted the significance that the hon. Gentleman discerns in the clause.
Then there is the problem, if we adopt a Cabinet model, of the Official Secrets Act 1989, referred to in clause 79, which I suspect we will discuss later. It appears that it would be deemed to apply only to Front Benchers—the Executive Committee—and would thus need to be amended. We shall discuss that later, too, I suspect.
Then we need to consider the departmental staff—the people who do the conventional civil service work. If BSE continues to be a problem, a vet from the state veterinary service in Scotland who visits a sick cow will be employed by the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department, under the Scottish Parliament. In England, a cow suspected of having BSE will be visited by a vet employed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In Wales, however, a sick cow will be visited by a Welsh assembly vet, not a vet from the Agriculture Department, because civil servants carrying out usual departmental work will belong not to Departments but to the Welsh assembly. Here, too, consequential changes are called for.
We need to think seriously about two further changes, although they may seem optional. The first concerns the vote of confidence procedure that can trigger elections. We need to debate—I am not convinced of it myself—whether fixed-term elections can be sustained with a Cabinet system. What happens if the First Secretary or the Cabinet loses the confidence of the assembly? Could they stagger on for another four years after losing the confidence of the assembly, perhaps by replacing the First Secretary and the members of the Executive Committee? Would there be a right to ask for a dissolution, in the same way as the Scottish Parliament could?
Finally, under a Cabinet system, would each party be required to elect its leader in advance of the elections? We know of the problems that the Tory party is experiencing in its consideration of the various voting systems—

Mr. Ancram: indicated dissent.

Mr. Morgan: I am not making a party political point; I am simply saying that the Conservative party is considering the one member, one vote, system of electing its leader.
Will that need to be done in Wales as well by changing the Welsh Labour party rules, as the Scottish Labour party did some 10 days ago when it said that the putative Scottish First Minister will need to be given a democratic mandate in the party political sense? If we are to adopt the Cabinet model, we must think about changing the rules in the Welsh Labour party. We could then have a Prime Minister designate, selected by one member, one vote.
The alternative approach is to use the local government model, whereby the leader of the assembly is selected the day after the election from the 20 or so—or however many is required to have a majority—of the 35 Members elected. The minimum number of votes with which one could win a majority in the Welsh assembly is 31. If someone is voted for by 31 Members of the Assembly,


as Labour might hope to achieve, 16 will constitute a majority. If a person can get 16 votes on the day after the election, he or she will be the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly. Although those 16 people will have been voted in by the people of Wales, theirs will not constitute a big democratic mandate as compared with that of the British Prime Minister or the Scottish First Minister.
That may not be a matter for this House, but it is a matter for all the parties represented in this House which will contest the election. They are concerned with the quality of the democratic mandate that flows from having a Cabinet system.
The points that I have made follow the same line as those made by the vast majority of Labour Members who have spoken. If we adopt a Cabinet system, at least initially, we need to follow through the changes logically so that we have a consistent package. If we do not—many Labour Members think that we should not—that is fine, because we will not need to make those consequential changes until we opt for a Cabinet model. However, if we adopt the Cabinet model first, we need to make the consequential changes that go with that so that we have a coherent whole. If we do it the other way around, there will be less of a problem, provided that permission is included in the Bill.
I am inclined to think that we should not have gone down this road, in spite of the pressing and blandishments of all three Opposition parties and of the advisory committee. It is far too easy to make the fundamental mistake of choosing a Westminster solution to a Welsh problem and Welsh political circumstances. We have not yet reached the stage where we need to opt for the kind of recommendations that have been made by all three Opposition parties because they are far too liable to "Westminsterise" the new Welsh democratic creation which we have spent so much time and trouble trying to get right.

Mr. Syms: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said. We are almost always on opposite sides of the argument in this Chamber, but he made some good points. I agree that the Bill must be logical.
However, I support the changes proposed by the Government because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said, a Cabinet system would be better because it recognises what will inevitably happen: after an election, the party with a majority will hold a meeting to elect who it wants to run the Committees. The proposed change makes that more explicit than it would be if we adopted the local government model.
The whole tenor of the Bill is that a further tier of government is required in Wales, so it is right to recognise it in this form. A Cabinet system would clearly delineate who is running the assembly and who is on the Opposition side. Earlier in the debate, an hon. Member said that we would have shadow Secretaries next. In many respects, that could be a good thing. I believe that an Administration, an Opposition and some debate are what democratic structures are about.
We have heard a great deal about inclusivity and the new politics, but once we get an assembly I suspect that it will be politics as we have always known them, with

parties competing, arguing, debating and putting forward their points. The key point about a Cabinet system is that it allows a party to stand on a platform before the electorate. At the end of an election, if that party commands a majority within the assembly, it will have the mechanisms to carry out its mandate. That provides some accountability, which the more general and diffuse local government model does not provide.
I support my right hon. Friend's amendment to limit the number of Assembly Secretaries to eight. Under the Bill as it stands, their number could be unlimited. The idea of a non-portfolio Secretary is interesting. I am surprised that 20 Members will be elected on the alternative member system without constituencies and they could have non-jobs and be Ministers, although, thinking about it more carefully, a "non-portfolio Secretary" sounds like a Chief Whip. In this new politics, I am sure that Whips will run the political structure. Patronage is part of the system and clearly goes with the alternative member system. After all, parties will appoint placemen on those lists.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) made a good point about the home civil service. Civil servants will sometimes have divided loyalties, particularly when they represent this country in European institutions. That reveals a more difficult problem—the question of political appointees. If Cabinet members feel that they do not have the whole-hearted loyalty of home civil servants, they may fill that vacuum by making more political appointments. Nothing in the Bill stops them doing that.
Most political parties would think that it is perfectly sensible to have political advisers, but it is probably inevitable that, if we have a First Secretary, we shall have a First Secretary's policy unit, press secretary and other appointments. The Government should think a little more about that. If they do not make it clear to whom people are responsible, the vacuum may be filled by political appointees from a political party, who may start to play a larger role within the assembly's political affairs than would be the case in the British political system.
Despite criticism by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, the British system has few political appointees or special advisers to Prime Ministers or Ministers. Most advisers are career civil servants, which is how it should be. If the assembly is not in control of its own civil servants because they form part of the home civil service, it will be tempted to make political appointments.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West spoke about votes of confidence, which would become an important concept. There would no doubt be a vote of confidence in the First Secretary, but the fact that there are fixed four-year terms would be a problem. Elections are not always a problem, but they can solve problems if there is a logjam in a legislative assembly.

Mr. Letwin: Will my hon. Friend expand the point which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) did not quite make, and my hon. Friend has not quite made? Will he go on to say that, in this case, a strange situation could arise in respect of the Committee that had delegated authority to the Secretary in the first place? If its political position altered, for example by movement


across the Floor of one person, the Committee could reabsorb and de-delegate the power, thereby causing a crisis not just of confidence but of legislative authority.

Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend raises a good point. The issue of hon. Members leaving parties brings us back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes about the registration of political parties. That forms part of the Bill—or the cake—that we have not seen, and is relevant to the way in which political parties operate.
The ability to dissolve is an important part of the political process. A vote of confidence may sometimes be moved and carried, and the party concerned may be unable to assemble sufficient forces to produce an alternative to run the assembly; chaos would ensue. The assembly will dispose of a good deal of money, and will provide important services for the people of Wales. We therefore need to be clear about what will happen under the new arrangements.
That brings us to the question of concordats, in their broadest sense. Will a concordat be concluded with a First Secretary—in effect, the Cabinet—and, if that First Secretary is removed, will the concordat become null and void? Or can the system involving the First Secretary and the Cabinet change, while the concordat remains for the four-year period that may have been agreed with the assembly? That is a grey area, and I think that we should hear a bit more about how the system will work.
Surely it is sensible for an administration involving a First Secretary, Assembly Secretaries and a Cabinet system to agree a concordat with the United Kingdom Government. If that administration were removed, perhaps the terms of the concordat should also go, and should not be inherited by any successor body.
7 pm
Many parts of the Bill may well need tidying up because of proposed changes, but I broadly welcome the change to a Cabinet system. It will make the assembly more accountable, and, as I said at the outset, it will provide a platform, in that the manifesto presented to the electorate will have to be pushed through an assembly explicitly rather than behind closed doors.
In local government, there is a pretence that there is a committee system in which everyone has a say, but, having served in local government for many years, I know that, in practice, the most important decisions are made in group meetings rather than in debates in the chamber. I served on authorities that the Liberal Democrats ran for many years, and theirs was not the most inclusive, democratic, open way of doing things. They had group meetings and drummed measures through, very much like everyone else.
I welcome the changes overall, but there are certain problems. We must look at the question of concordats, and at votes of confidence and how First Secretaries are removed. There is also the question of civil servants' loyalty. My sympathies are not particularly with the assembly, but, if it is to exist, it is logical for it to employ—directly or otherwise—a certain number of civil servants, even in senior posts, rather than people being seconded or working for the home civil service.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I firmly believe that the Government have no reason to be apologetic or

defensive about new clauses 20 to 24. Their commitment to the new clauses reflects their willingness to listen to everyone who is genuinely committed to the idea of a successful assembly—and a successful assembly, which will deliver in terms of the expectations that have arisen in Wales, will need a strong executive wing.
The Bill does not refer to a Cabinet as such; it refers to an Executive Committee. I cannot see for the life of me what all the fuss is about. In a thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) pointed out that, in local government, decisions are normally made behind the scenes, by the ruling group. I agree, and I speak as one who served in local government before becoming a Member of Parliament.
The new clauses and amendments would introduce three important changes that would make the assembly more effective. First, they would make executive decision making more accountable, and would increase the focus—and, for that matter, political control—that can be brought to bear on civil servants. That is essential. Secondly, they would increase the efficiency and speed of decision making. That, too, is essential.
One of the criticisms of the local government system in its purest form was that it was unwieldy, and incapable of responding speedily when quick decisions were required. Is it not significant that the present Administration are embarking on a reform of local government? After all, it is generally felt that the Committee system tends to be too slow, and that it lacks transparency.
The third important aspect of the proposed changes is that the assembly's status would be enhanced. We must be careful not to ascribe too many of the trappings of power to the assembly, because this Parliament is sovereign; but, in my view, it is essential for the public to see who is responsible for each area of responsibility. There is a tension between the roles of Back Benchers and executive Assembly Secretaries. I saw force in what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). We cannot allow the assembly to adopt the worst practices of Westminster, where the power of the Executive has at times been far too great. There must be a balance between the scrutinising work of Back Benchers and the role of those with executive functions.
The Bill proposes the establishment of a council in partnership with local government, a voting system, the establishment of various advisory bodies and various other measures which, I am sure, will result from greater input into the work of drawing up Standing Orders. There will have to be a proper and fair balance between the Executive and Back Benchers. There will have to be steps to safeguard the role of Back Benchers and allow them to perform independently, but I welcome the new clauses. They give the assembly the tools that it needs to complete an important job.

Mr. Owen Paterson: I want to pick up the business analogy made by my temporary. hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), which I found completely bizarre. No one else has suggested that we are making a major constitutional change along the lines of a change made by business. For one thing, the prospectus on the basis of which we set out


back in the summer had the support of only 25 per cent. of the population. I know that Labour Members do not like that, but it is something to think about. They might also remember that management consultants like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire will go for downsizing and clearness of decision making. I am afraid that that is being lost in the whole devolution process.
Overheads and over-management are a subject on which management consultants like the hon. Gentleman concentrate. Once devolution has happened, all Ministers will be without jobs. More important, however, is the fact that the new clauses go halfway towards improving what was set out in the original Bill. There is no doubt—as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said so eloquently—that there are serious doubts about the attempt to turn the assembly into a local government-style institution.
We have gone halfway; the problem is that the semi-Cabinet proposed by the new clauses and amendment is almost autonomous. It constitutes yet another layer. We have a Secretary of State, we will have a mini-Cabinet, and we will have the assembly. Once power has been devolved to the mini-Cabinet, I see no mechanism whereby the assembly can claw it back and make the Cabinet accountable. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would answer that point.
We are going all the way to devolving power to the assembly. We are told that the problem of the democratic deficit will be resolved, and that all will be green in the new Wales. I fear, however, that we shall hand power to a small group of people in the assembly, after which we shall be trapped. I see no mechanism in the new clauses and amendments, or in the Bill, whereby the power can be returned. All that Opposition Members are trying to achieve will be lost.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) that we have gone halfway from a semi-local government system to a Cabinet system, but not all the way. I ask Labour Members not to keep knocking the Cabinet system. It has evolved over many centuries, and it works well. What are their criticisms of such a system, when it is set up properly? They are right to criticise the new clauses and amendments, because they do not go far enough. The Cabinet will not be accountable to the assembly.

Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the fact that hon. Members have started from different positions in respect of what they would prefer, it has been remarkable that, to all intents and purposes, there has been a cross-party tripartite agreement between almost all the Secretary of State's Back Benchers—with one notable exception—the leader of Plaid Cymru and the Conservative party, that, if the new clauses are to be accepted, there also need to be some checks? The one party that takes a different view is the Liberal Democrat party, which is left stranded on an island with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Paterson: The Liberal Democrats are basically giving management advice. They are concerned about transport systems and the railway. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is now virtual cross-party unanimity that

the matter should be looked at again, possibly in another place. Of course, given the way that the Secretary of State has been behaving this week, perhaps he will bounce us with yet more amendments tomorrow. I do not think that the new clauses and amendments in this group will work. The right hon. Gentleman is on the right track, but, when he replies to the debate, I want him to give me a quick answer on how the mini-Cabinet will be accountable back to the assembly, and whether he has any further plans in this regard.

Mr. Julie Morgan: I want to speak to amendment (d), in my name. Most of the points that I wanted to make have already been made. My main purpose in tabling the amendment was to draw attention to the dangers of concentrating too much power in the hands of one person, by allowing the First Secretary to appoint the Secretaries who will be members of the Executive Committee without reference to the rest of the assembly.
During the devolution campaign, we campaigned on open government and transparency in decision making. There is a danger that the public could perceive power to have shifted to a selected group chosen by the First Secretary, rather than being vested in the assembly. It is the system that operates in Westminster, but that system has built up over many centuries. It is not what we want slavishly to follow in the Welsh assembly. We are starting with a blank sheet, so we should have something unique to Wales, not something that apes another system.
I strongly believe that there should be as little patronage as possible, because we all know that patronage often leads to the abuse of patronage. We have seen that in the development of the quango state in Wales over the past 18 years. The power to hire and fire should not be uncontrolled. There must be constraints so that the Executive—the quasi-Cabinet—will not be dependent on and built around just one person. Allowing the assembly to endorse the Secretaries—the members of the Executive Committee—would ensure that a concentration of power would not be given to one person. He or she should not be allowed to choose those members. There may be a danger that too much power will be concentrated in the Executive, which may result in Back-Bench Members of the Assembly being dependent on the good will of the First Secretary and the Secretaries, which would be unsatisfactory.
It is important that the Committees are involved in policy making, and I welcome the discretion that the assembly is being given. We want as inclusive a system as possible. There is an issue surrounding Cabinet systems operating in secret. There should be as little divide as possible between the Secretaries and the Members. Only 60 Members make a small group to operate a Cabinet system.
It is important how the system will appear to the outside world. We are trying to develop a new model, and having a partnership council with local government, business and the voluntary sector will help the assembly to be open and accountable. However, many voluntary organisations are uneasy about the delegation of considerable power to the Secretaries over the heads of the Committees. It is important that the Committees and the Secretaries work together in an effective way.
As has been said, it is possible that some members of the Executive may not be linked to the subject Committees. In that case, it is even more important that


they are endorsed and accepted by the whole assembly. Obviously, the Assembly Secretaries will have some delegated authority, but accountability to their respective Committees should be built in. I welcome the fact that the assembly will be given the discretion to work that out.
There may be some suspicion about the move to a Cabinet system because, in some ways, that runs counter to the spirit of accountable democracy. Having a democratic layer, such as that suggested in my amendment, would be more in the spirit of the new politics that we hope to achieve in Wales.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak so soon after my last piece of spellbinding oratory at 6.15 this morning, when I had the Adjournment debate. One piece of advice that I will give the Secretary of State is that, if the assembly decides to have Adjournment debates, they should start the day, not end it. [Interruption.] It is another piece of constructive advice from the Conservative party. That is how we want to continue.
We welcome the Government new clauses. We were not trying to be destructive in our attempt to get more time to debate all the new clauses and amendments. However, we are not being given that opportunity, so we will try to improve the Bill as much as we can in the two days at our disposal, before it goes to the other place.
We feel that the Secretary of State has listened to us. [Interruption.] Perhaps only a little bit, but that is a start—late in the day though it may be. We are debating changes that we and other political parties have been seeking and on which the right hon. Gentleman's advisory group gave him guidance. There is a lot of popular support for the changes, although we have heard some reservations expressed in the Chamber today. The fact that there has been such unanimity across the parties is sufficient reason for us to question some of the consequences of the new clauses, which involve major changes.

Mr. Grieve: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but is it not a most depressing state of affairs? However suspicious we Conservatives may be of the whole proposal for Welsh devolution, at least it has been possible for us to share, albeit in a mild way and with some cynicism, the Utopianism of some of the proposals. Yet we are now being asked to consider amendments that will reverse all that and, in its place, we are being asked to accept something that will be far worse.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. The debate has shown that there will be a great deal of theorising about what will constitute the workings of the assembly. As the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said earlier, the assembly will start to devise its own trappings and systems, for good or for ill. It will start to mirror Westminster or somewhere else—but I suspect Westminster.
I was reading in the business section of The Western Mail the view that one of the plagues of Westminster is the lobby system—yet a new lobbying group is being launched in Wales, led by Leighton Andrews and Andrew Davies, who are known to the Secretary of State. The newspaper quotes Leighton Andrews as saying:

There are some good generalist PR companies in Wales but they neither have the contacts nor the experience of the new Welsh political situation to be able to advise on public affairs.
We are already seeing in Wales something that many people in Westminster deride. They think that the lobby groups have too much power. A group is starting up in Wales before the first brick of the assembly is laid.

Mr. Denzil Davies: It will be more worth while to lobby the Welsh assembly, because the people being lobbied will have money to distribute.

Mr. Evans: I am sure that that has not been lost on Leighton Andrews and Andrew Davies. I suspect that it is one of the reasons why they have not only set themselves up but managed to secure positive coverage on the front page of the Western Mail business section.
We asked about the financial aspects of the changes, and I rather regretted the fact that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said that it did not really matter whether the figure was a couple of per cent. below or a couple of per cent. above. We are talking large sums of money, and we want to seek good value for the people of Wales in the setting up of the assembly, as well as in its running costs, to ensure that money is not being diverted away from front-line services and lost in bureaucracy. We want to get all that as right as we can.
I know that the Secretary of State will want to answer some of the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about how the new Cabinet-style system will work. The analogy with a barking duck or a quacking dog was used, and we should like to know exactly what the system will be like, although we acknowledge the fact that it will evolve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) mentioned a Whip system. I am sure that, although that is not on the face of the Bill, such a system will come about, and that persuasion and patronage will be exercised by the Whips.
We have tabled several amendments about the number of Assembly Secretaries. As the assembly will consist of only 60 Members, we think that eight Secretaries is the right number. With the First Secretary, that will mean that, with 60 Members, there will be nine Secretaries altogether. I hope that the Secretary of State will look favourably on that idea, although we accept that the assembly will be able to make changes if a two-thirds majority can be secured.
Before I finish, I must ask the Secretary of State one or two questions. One is about the relationship between the First Secretary, the Assembly Secretaries and the assembly itself. Will the right hon. Gentleman say more about that, and also about the relationship between those three and the Secretary of State—unless, of course, the Secretary of State and the First Secretary will be the same person.
The right hon. Gentleman need not worry; I shall not ask whether he will stand for the assembly. I understand that, after the way in which he performed over the siting of the assembly, he has not made up his mind.

Mr. Leigh: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Evans: No, I cannot, because I must bring my speech to an end.
Will the Secretary of State say something about our amendments on the relationships involving the Select Committees, and tell us whether we can go down the route suggested? I have served on three Select Committees since becoming a Member of Parliament, and they are powerful bodies. We want to ensure that the parallel organisations in Wales grow up, serve the assembly well and become a powerful influence for good.
Will the Secretary of State accept the fact that our suggestions, both now and in the past, have been right for the assembly, but also that there are great reservations about the changes that he has made? We want to be clear about what will happen when the assembly adopts the changes—although we know that they may not represent the final format, and that the assembly may want to make its own improvements.
The Secretary of State has started to listen, and he still has another day and a half to accept some of our amendments.

Mr. Ron Davies: If I had to listen to many more speeches like that, I could be persuaded not to spend my time listening. However, I welcome the strong support that has been shown for our proposals by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and by the Plaid Cymru and Liberal Democrat spokesmen.
I shall make clear at the outset a point that I tried to develop in the opening part of the debate: we are not talking about a choice between either a local government system or a Cabinet system, but about a new political institution that must be built by drawing the best from both local government and central Government practices. We shall have the best of a Cabinet system and a Westminster system, as well as the best of a local government system.
I believe that the new political institution that we are creating will be able to establish the principles of inclusivity and collective decision making, while maintaining clear lines of accountability and effective decision making. That is what we are trying to achieve, and I have no doubt that our amendments will achieve it.
Many separate and sometimes conflicting amendments have been tabled, and I shall try to deal with as many as I can during the limited time left to me. Three separate sets of amendments were tabled to new clause 20. Amendment (c) would make the First Secretary's appointments of individual Assembly Secretaries subject to the approval of the subject Committees of which they will become members.
Amendment (d) would make each appointment of an Assembly Secretary subject to ratification by the assembly as a whole. Amendments (a) and (b) would remove the ability of the First Secretary to appoint a limited number of non-portfolio members of the Executive Committee, and require him or her to appoint a financial secretary and a business manager. They would also place on the face of the Bill a limit of eight on the maximum number of Assembly Secretaries whom the First Secretary could appoint.
I understand the motivation behind amendments (c) and (d). I am not, however, persuaded to accept them. The concern is that, under the Government's amendments,

there would be excessive powers of patronage for the First Secretary in respect of appointments to the Executive Committee. However, I remind the House, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), that the First Secretary's power is not unconstrained. The assembly elects the First Secretary, and it will always be open to it to replace the First Secretary with another appointee if it is clear that the First Secretary's proposed appointments or other actions are inappropriate.
Amendment (c) may reveal a concern that it will not be easy for a subject Committee to work with a particular individual who has been appointed as the Assembly Secretary for that policy area. I understand that argument, but I do not accept it. It will be incumbent on the First Secretary to make appointments which will command general respect in the assembly, and it will be incumbent on those appointed to work with their subject committees in a constructive and positive way. That will form an important part of the accountability pressures to which they will be subject. That point was raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
Clearly, if an individual Assembly Secretary's working relationship with his or her subject committee breaks down, that would be likely to constitute good grounds for replacing that Secretary with someone more capable of establishing a proper partnership with the Committee. The precise nature of the relationship between the Assembly Secretary and the subject Committee will have to develop as the assembly is elected and its internal procedures develop.
The Government are not persuaded that it would be sensible to accept amendments (a) and (b). In fact, we are surprised at the proposal that the First Secretary should be put under a legal duty to make two specific appointments, of a financial secretary and a business manager, when those roles are not defined, which makes the amendments defective. I accept that there may be a case for such appointments—but it is hardly consistent with the concept of a Cabinet system that the First Secretary's choice of offices to be filled should be constrained in that way as a matter of law. We are not persuaded by that idea.
The amendments tabled to new clauses 21 and 22 are concerned with the names of the Executive Committee and the subject Committees. As far as nomenclature is concerned, it will already be possible under the Government's proposals for the assembly to designate the Executive Committee as the assembly Cabinet, and call the subject Committees Select Committees, if it wishes to do so; those names can appear in Standing Orders. The more important point, however, is what the Committees will do and how they will operate, which I have already dealt with in introducing new clauses 20 to 24.
New clause 24 makes provision for the delegation of functions to the assembly's staff. It therefore extends to the assembly the application of the Carltona principle, in accordance with which it is legally permissible for a duly authorised civil servant in a central Government Department to act on behalf of his or her Minister in the performance of statutory functions. Decisions made by planning inspectors provide one example of functions being performed by officials on behalf of Ministers; another example is the confirmation of byelaws.
Amendments (a) to (h) to new clause 24 would prevent the assembly from delegating any "functions" to staff, but would limit delegation to "administrative duties"—a point that was made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik).

Mr. Rowlands: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: I have too many points to reply to.
The Government believe that the assembly should be able to take advantage of the Carltona principle if it wishes, and new clause 24 as drafted permits that. The clause is purely facilitative—there is no requirement to delegate any function to staff—and its main purpose is to ensure that, if such delegation does take place, it is done in a manner compatible with the permanent secretary's overall responsibilities for the management of the staff.
New clause 25 proposes three categories of assembly staff—parliamentary staff, political staff and executive staff. All, it appears, would be civil servants. New clause 29 would require the Minister responsible for the civil service to consult the assembly on codes of practice and procedure applicable to assembly staff who are civil servants. Amendments Nos. 231 to 233 envisage the appointment of not more than 10 assembly officers, whose functions are not described in the amendments but who certainly would not be civil servants.
Finally, new clauses 32 and 33 and new schedule 1 envisage the creation of a Welsh Assembly Corporate Body with the powers to hold property, employ staff and enter into contracts. To make room for that, the assembly would be deprived by amendment No. 250 of its Corporate Body status and its legal status allowed to float in the void. Therefore, that makes the amendment unacceptable.
The amendments and new clauses have a common theme—the position of the assembly staff. Under the Bill, they are to be civil servants. That follows logically from the executive character of the assembly and the fact that it will perform its functions on behalf of the Crown.
The position of assembly staff, and the support which will be provided for Assembly Members, is being considered by my assembly advisory group. The statutory assembly's staff will be civil servants, operating to the highest standards of honesty, integrity and political impartiality which apply throughout the United Kingdom. They will have to be organised to support Assembly Members in the carrying out of their various and different roles. Most of the staff will work in support of the Assembly Secretaries—
It being half-past Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New clause 21

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

'.—(1) There shall be a committee of the Assembly whose members shall be—


(a) the Assembly First Secretary, who shall chair it, and
(b) the Assembly Secretaries.
(2) The committee shall be known by such title as the standing orders may provide (but is referred to in this Act as the executive committee).
(3) The Assembly First Secretary shall allocate accountability in the fields in which the Assembly has functions to members of the executive committee so that, in the case of each of those fields, accountability in the field is allocated either to one of the Assembly Secretaries or to him.
(4) The Assembly First Secretary need not make an allocation under subsection (3) to every member of the executive committee; but the number of Assembly Secretaries to whom no such allocation is made shall not exceed such number as may be specified in, or determined in accordance with, the standing orders.
(5) For the purposes of this section and section (Subject committees) "accountability", in relation to a member of the executive committee and a field, means that he is the member of the executive committee accountable to the Assembly (in accordance with standing orders under subsection (7)) for the exercise of the Assembly's functions in that field, except the exercise of functions by the executive committee (or by the Assembly itself).
(6) The Assembly First Secretary is accountable to the Assembly (in accordance with standing orders under subsection (7)) for the exercise of functions by the executive committee.
(7) The standing orders must include provision for allowing Assembly members to question (orally or in writing, as Assembly members prefer)—
(a) each member of the executive committee about the exercise of the Assembly's functions in the field or fields in which he is accountable, except the exercise of functions by the executive committee (or by the Assembly itself), and
(b) the Assembly First Secretary about the exercise of functions by the executive committee.
(8) In this section—
(a) references to the exercise of functions by the executive committee include the exercise of functions by a subcommittee of that committee or by members of the Assembly's staff in pursuance of a delegation to the Assembly's staff by either that committee or such a sub-committee, and
(b) references to the exercise of functions by the Assembly itself include the exercise of functions by members of the Assembly's staff in pursuance of a delegation to the Assembly's staff by the Assembly itself.'. [Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 22

SUBJECT COMMITTEES

'.—(1) The Assembly shall establish committees with responsibilities in the fields in which the Assembly has functions.

(2) The committees established under this section shall be known by such titles as the standing orders may provide (but are referred to in this Act as subject committees).
(3) There shall be the same number of—
(a) subject committees, and
(b) members of the executive committee to whom the Assembly First Secretary allocates accountability in any of the fields in which the Assembly has functions.
(4) The division between the subject committees of the fields in which those committees have responsibilities and the division between members of the executive committee of the fields in which accountability is allocated to members of that committee shall be


the same; and the member of the executive committee who has accountability in the field or fields in which a subject committee has responsibilities shall be a member of that subject committee.
(5) The Assembly shall elect a number of Assembly members to be a panel from which the members who are to chair the subject committees are to be selected; and the members of the panel shall be elected so as to secure that, as far as is practicable, the balance of the parties in the Assembly is reflected in the membership of the panel.
(6) The number of members of the panel at any time shall be equal to the number of subject committees at that time; and each member of the panel shall be selected to chair one (but not more than one) subject committee.
(7) A subject committee shall have such number of members (in addition to the person who is a member of the committee by virtue of subsection (4) and the member who chairs it) as the standing orders may provide.
(8) Those other members shall be elected by the Assembly from among the Assembly members so as to secure that, as far as is practicable, the balance of the parties in the Assembly is reflected in the membership of the committee (including the person who is a member by virtue of subsection (4) and the member who chairs it).'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 23

DELEGATION OF FUNCTIONS

'.—(1) The Assembly may delegate functions of the Assembly (to such extent as the Assembly may determine) to—
(a) any committee of the Assembly, or
(b) the Assembly First Secretary.

(2) Any committee of the Assembly, apart from the Audit Committee, may delegate functions of the committee (to such extent as the committee may determine) to a sub-committee of the committee.
(3) In addition—
(a) the executive committee may delegate functions of the executive committee (to such extent as the executive committee may determine) to the Assembly First Secretary or an Assembly Secretary, and
(b) a subject committee may delegate functions of the subject committee (to such extent as the subject committee may determine) to the member of the executive committee who is a member of the subject committee by virtue of section (Subject committees)(4).
(4) A sub-committee of the executive committee may delegate functions of the sub-committee (to such extent as the subcommittee may determine) to the Assembly First Secretary or an Assembly Secretary; and a sub-committee of a subject committee may delegate functions of the sub-committee (to such extent as the sub-committee may determine) to the member of the executive committee who is a member of the subject committee by virtue of section (Subject committees)(4).
(5) The Assembly First Secretary may delegate functions of his (to such extent as he may determine) to an Assembly Secretary.
(6) In delegating a function under any provision of this section the Assembly, a committee of the Assembly or a sub-committee of such a committee may limit or prohibit its further delegation under this section or section(Exercise of functions by Assembly staff) (or both).
(7) Where a function has been delegated to the Assembly, this section applies to the function subject to the terms of the delegation to the Assembly.
(8) The delegation of a function under this section shall not prevent the exercise of the function by the body or person by whom the delegation is made.'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 24

EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS BY ASSEMBLY STAFF

'.—(1) Each of the following—

(a) the Assembly,
(b) any committee of the Assembly, apart from the Audit Committee,
(c) any sub-committee of a committee of the Assembly,
(d) the Assembly First Secretary, and
(e) any Assembly Secretary, may delegate functions to the Assembly's staff.
(2) Where a function is delegated to the Assembly's staff it is for the Permanent Secretary to the Assembly to make arrangements as to which member or members of the Assembly's staff is or are to exercise the function; and in this subsection "the Permanent Secretary to the Assembly" means the person appointed in accordance with section 35(1) and (3) to be the head of the Assembly's staff (whether or not that person is known by the title of Permanent Secretary to the Assembly).
(3) Where a function has been delegated to the Assembly, this section applies to the function subject to the terms of the delegation to the Assembly.
(4) The delegation of a function under this section shall not prevent the exercise of the function by the body or person by whom the delegation is made.'. —[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 16

STATUS OF WELSH PUBLIC RECORDS

'.—(1) Welsh public records shall not be public records for the purposes of the Public Records Act 1958.

(2) But that Act shall have effect in relation to Welsh public records (as if they were public records for the purposes of that Act) until an order under section (Transfer of responsibility) imposes a duty to preserve them on the Assembly (or a member of the Assembly's staff); and this subsection applies to Welsh public records whether or not, apart from subsection (1), they would be public records for those purposes.'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 17—Transfer of responsibility.
Government new clause 18—Meaning of "Welsh public records".
Government Amendments Nos. 113 to 115, 118 and 99 to 102.

Mr. Davies: We said on Second Reading that we would bring forward amendments to make new provision for Welsh public records. I am pleased to present the new clauses and amendments now, and the House will wish me to explain their effect in a little detail. There are three new clauses and a number of consequential amendments. The broad effect of the new clauses is as follows. First, we propose that there should be created a new category of Welsh public records. As the House may know, there is no separate record office


for Wales at present and most public records relating to Wales are held in the Public Record Office at Kew. That is very different from the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where national record offices hold records relating to those countries.
The proposal, therefore, is that, simultaneously with the establishment of the assembly, a new category of Welsh public record will be created and, in the fulness of time, responsibility for them will be transferred by order to the assembly.
I shall explain what records will fall within the new category—they are set out in new clause 18. The first will be those of the assembly itself. The Public Record Office does not, as a matter of principle, hold records of any elected bodies. It follows that, without the provision that we are making, there would not be proper provision for the assembly's records.
The second category will be records of the Welsh Office. That is particularly appropriate because the Department's records have now to become available under the 30-year rule.
Third will be the records of other bodies with responsibilities in Wales in areas in which the assembly has responsibilities—health bodies, a number of listed public bodies and the records of bodies that may, at a later date, be made subject to the new provisions by order.
The idea is to be able to extend, where that is considered appropriate, the category of Welsh public records to a wider range of non-departmental public bodies than the 1958 Act currently applies to, but that power would not be exercisable without the assembly formally resolving to request the Lord Chancellor to do so. In such circumstances, the assembly would want, first, to consult the affected bodies.
The new category of Welsh public records will have no operational significance unless and until my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who has departmental responsibility for public records, makes a transfer of responsibility order under new clause 17.
The effect of such an order, which can be made only after consultation with the assembly, would be to transfer to the assembly responsibility for the preservation of Welsh public records covered by the order and responsibility for making them available for public inspection.

Mr. Rowlands: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's excellent decision. I have perhaps spent too much of my time at the Public Record Office at Kew searching among Welsh Office or Welsh documents of one kind or another, and the new clause will give students and research assistants much better access than was possible at Kew, with the additional cost that spending time there entailed.
The BD category at Kew applies to Welsh documents, some of which go back to 1945–46, with the old Board of Trade documents. Will they also be available for transfer, as opposed to those post-1964? They are extremely valuable and many reflect the evolution of Welsh administrative life before the establishment of the Welsh Office. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that.

Mr. Davies: As always I am grateful for my hon. Friend's vigorous and wholehearted support. I am only 

sorry that during the previous debate, when he expressed full and vigorous support for Government policy, we had to change the policy. On this occasion, I assure him that his support is welcome and it will ensure that my determination to proceed with the proposal as it stands is set even deeper in concrete. I hope to be able to give my hon. Friend a specific answer by the usual method before the end of the debate. If I cannot do that, I shall write to him. It may well be that the answer is yes. I am having some difficulty with the calligraphy.
A transfer of responsibility order will also contain provisions based on the Public Records Act 1958 on requirements for preservation, so there is no question that a lower standard of preservation of the records will follow from the making of such an order. Furthermore, such an order will designate a place within Wales to which Welsh public records may be transferred from the Public Record Office. No decision has yet been made about where that should be, and there will be no need to reach such a decision for some time yet. In due course, a study will be undertaken of the options. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions to make in that regard, I shall listen carefully.

Mr. Rowlands: I understand that at the moment most Welsh Office records are in the Embankment building—an old munitions building that is the least advisable building for such a purpose. I hope that my right hon. Friend does not go out to massive tendering of the kind that we had for the new assembly, and that we have a public record office in which Welsh records will fit.

Mr. Davies: I am sure that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter further, and I shall listen carefully to my hon. Friend's observations.
We have also had to amend clause 148 to ensure that it covers a transfer of responsibility order made by the Lord Chancellor, who is not a Secretary of State. That is the reasoning behind amendment No. 99.
I should make clear that all the clauses simply facilitate a process of, in effect, establishing a location in Wales for the preservation and public inspection of records relating to Wales. They do not require that to happen. The assembly will clearly need from the outset to preserve its records in accordance with the 1958 Act, but there is no reason necessarily to suppose that an early transfer of responsibility order will be made.

Mr. Grieve: I support the idea of Welsh records going to Wales, but how far back will they go? There will come a point when extricating English and Welsh records will be difficult. We might have to wait for a more detailed presentation, but there might be objections if certain hybrid records were transferred.

Mr. Davies: The matter can obviously be sensitive. The hon. Gentleman's point is fair and will be taken into consideration when we consider the nature of the records that will be held in Wales.
The new clauses will facilitate the provision of a record office rather than require it. The assembly will have to consider the options and the costs, in consultation with the Public Record Office and the Lord Chancellor, to see whether and when the powers should be exercised. Nevertheless, the new clauses represent a major step forward in identifying a discrete category of records


specifically relating to Welsh public administration. They hold out the prospect of such records being held and made available for public inspection in Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: I shall be brief. I intervened a couple of times in my right hon. Friend's speech because I feared that there would not be enough time for me to speak.
I should like to underline my support for and appreciation of the proposals. It may not have been the easiest of battles to obtain the powers in the new clauses. The Public Record Office is a jealous guardian of its powers and responsibilities and I imagine that the Lord Chancellor's Office is, too. If there has been a bit of an argument, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on winning it. It is a significant one.
Welsh historical research has suffered considerably from the fact that records are held at Kew. It is an expensive business for a 22 or 23-year-old to come up to Kew and spend time at the Public Record Office to work through the available documents. Photocopying costs are enormous. I have the great fortune that I am here and can sneak out for an hour or two to do my research. A great deal of important research into Welsh public administration during the past 40 or 50 years has been made more difficult by the location of records at Kew.
I hope that the Lord Chancellor's office will take the most generous attitude to the matter. I understand the sensitivities that have been mentioned, but there are discrete categories of documents such as the BD documents. The BD documents do not belong to the Welsh Office because they belonged to the regional division of the Board of Trade after 1945, but that was the time of the birth of a distinctive Welsh administration. It was born out of the war. The records from the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Production and various Departments that survived the war and led to the regeneration of communities such as mine ought to come home.
I do not want to over-egg the matter, but the documents are the equivalent of our Elgin marbles. I welcome them home and I hope that they will find a fitting and proper home. I hope that, unlike what has happened on other aspects of our debates, we do not have a quarrel or squabble about where and in what way we shall have our records at home. I thank my right hon. Friend for winning whatever battle he has won to achieve this result.

Mr. Grieve: I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman for Mertyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has said. The categories of documents about which he is concerned cause me no concern at all. I stand to be corrected by the Secretary of State, but it seems to me that the powers could extend to documents from many years before those to which the hon. Gentleman referred—from a time when Wales had not become a separate administrative unit. People studying that time rather than Wales's development as a separate administrative unit might wish to study those documents. That would cause problems, but if I understand correctly what the Secretary of State said, that is not the category of document about which he is concerned. I understand that it is not the sort of document about which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

(Mr. Rowlands) is concerned, either. I simply raise a flag to say that we will come to a point at which we will come across sensitive documents.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not think that we should concede what the hon. Gentleman says. If documents from before 1536 and the Act of Union—I am not a mediaeval historian, so I do not know what the records look like—are available, why should they not be moved to Wales, except for the reason that we get into the amazing world of preservation? Let us concentrate on more recent documents that would be helpful in developing our contemporary Welsh history.

Mr. Grieve: On that, the hon. Gentleman and I can agree. I should only say that if we go back to the council of the marches we are dealing with matters that pertain to both sides of the border. I imagine that it is likely that there will be some objection from people dealing with records relating to Shropshire and Herefordshire if the documents are moved to a new depot in Wales. These are matters of some sensitivity, but I am prepared to accept that we should not labour them too much. I simply register the point that we have a common history and splitting archives is a complex matter.
It being a quarter to Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New clause 17

TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY

'.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may by order make provision—
(a) imposing or conferring on the Assembly (or a member of the Assembly's staff) functions relating to Welsh public records (including, in particular, functions of preserving them and of making them available for inspection by the public), and
(b) imposing on persons responsible for Welsh public records duties relating to the selection of such records for permanent preservation, the safe—keeping of such records and their transfer to a place specified in, or appointed under, the order.

(2) An order under this section may (in particular)—
(a) make in relation to Welsh public records provision analogous to that made by the Public Records Act 1958 in relation to records which are public records for the purposes of that Act, and
(b) contain any appropriate consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions or savings (including provisions in the form of amendments or repeals of enactments).
(3) An order under this section—
(a) may make provision in relation to all Welsh public records or any description of Welsh public records (or all Welsh public records apart from those of a particular description), and
(b) may make different provision in relation to different descriptions of Welsh public records.
(4) An order under this section which imposes on the Assembly (or a member of the Assembly's staff) a duty to preserve Welsh public records, or Welsh public records of any description, must


include provision for the Lord Chancellor to make such arrangements as appear appropriate for the transfer of Welsh public records, or Welsh public records of that description, which are in—
(a) the Public Record Office, or
(b) a place of deposit appointed under the Public Records Act 1958,
to a place specified in, or appointed under, the order.
(5) No order shall be made under this section unless the Lord Chancellor has consulted the Assembly.' — [Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 18

MEANING OF "WELSH PUBLIC RECORDS"

'.—(1) The following are Welsh public records—
(a) records of the Assembly,
(b) administrative and departmental records of the Auditor General for Wales,
(c) administrative and departmental records belonging to Her Majesty which are records of or held in any government department which is wholly or mainly concerned with Welsh affairs,
(d) administrative and departmental records belonging to Her Majesty which are records of any office, commission or other body or establishment under Her Majesty's Government which is wholly or mainly concerned with Welsh affairs in a field or fields in which the Assembly has functions,
(e) administrative and departmental records of the bodies and establishments specified in subsection (2) (but not records of health service hospitals in Wales which are of the descriptions excepted from being public records for the purposes of the Public Records Act 1958 in the case of health service hospitals in England), and
(f) any other description of records (other than records of any court or tribunal or held in any department of the Supreme Court) which is specified by order made by the Lord Chancellor.

(2) The bodies and establishments referred to in subsection (1)(e) are—
(a) the Countryside Council for Wales,
(b) the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales,
(c) Family Practitioner Committees for localities in Wales,
(d) the Further Education Funding Council for Wales,
(e) the General Teaching Council for Wales,
(f) health service hospitals, within the meaning of the National Health Service Act 1977, in Wales,
(g) the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales,
(h) the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales,
(i) National Health Service Authorities for districts or localities in Wales, or for areas in or consisting of Wales, including National Health Service trusts all of whose hospitals, establishments and facilities are situated in Wales,
(j) the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, and
(k) the Welsh Board of Health.

(3) An order under subsection (1)(f) may be made in relation to a description of records—
(a) which (immediately before the order is made) are public records for the purposes of the Public Records Act 1958, or
(b) which (at that time) are not public records for those purposes.
(4) No order under subsection (1)(f) may be made in relation to records within subsection (3)(a) unless the Lord Chancellor has consulted the Assembly; and no such order may be made in relation to records within subsection (3)(b) unless the Assembly has resolved that the Lord Chancellor be requested to make the order.
(5) In this section "records" includes not only written records but records conveying information by any other means whatsoever.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 19

CONSULTATION WITH BUSINESS

The Assembly shall carry out such consultation with representatives of business as it considers appropriate having regard to the impact of the exercise by the Assembly of its functions on the interests of business.' —[Mr Ron Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 204, in clause 64, page 31, line 33, leave out from 'consultation' to 'is' in line 34.

Mr. Davies: This new clause discharges the undertaking that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on 2 March, when we debated her amendment about a scheme to sustain and promote business in Wales.
It is right that the Bill should require consultation between representatives of business and the assembly, but it should do so in a flexible way. Business will be affected by many aspects of the assembly's work, so a scheme or more rigid form of consultation would not have been practical or desirable in our view. The new clause leaves it to the assembly to judge which representatives of business it is appropriate to consult, the frequency of consultation and the matters about which there should be consultation.

Mr. Llew Smith: I have no objection to the assembly consulting business. We have to extend the process of consultation to every aspect of our lives. What worries me is that the assembly should consult not only the shareholders but people on the shop floor or on building sites who are not generally regarded as part of the business community. I should have liked the new clause to refer to the need to consult not only business but the trade unions—the very organisations that gave birth to the Labour party that allowed the Minister to be in the privileged position that he is in today. If the trade unions are not consulted, the assembly will be consulting some business people such as the firm in my community—

Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone over the score.

Mr. Davies: I welcome my hon. Friend's unequivocal support for the Government's position. He will know that,


in keeping with best modern European practice, the term "business" is used to describe both sides of business. To give him the assurance he seeks, the expectation is that the assembly will be required to consult both employers and the trade union movement. I was going to come to that very point, but now that my hon. Friend has raised it with me, I can delete it from my introductory remarks.
Another important flexibility is that the assembly would be able to consult business representatives not only about the prospective exercise of functions but about measures that have already been adopted by the assembly and which have had an impact on business interests. For example, having operated a particular policy for a time, the assembly could choose to review with business or trade union representatives what effect it had had, and consult them on possible changes to the policy.
I welcome the support that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and his colleagues have given to the Government's proposal by putting their names to new clause 19.
Amendment No. 204 would remove the explicit reference in clause 64 to consultation with representatives of business about regulatory appraisals. The Government cannot accept the amendment. If its purpose is to prevent consultation with representatives of business under clause 64, it will fail. The clause would still require the subordinate legislation procedures to include provision for "appropriate consultation", and the standing orders could include consultation with representatives of business as part of that.
If the amendment's purpose is to make the point that there is no need to include a specific reference to consultation with representatives of business in clause 64, given the general nature of the duty in new clause 19, I have to disagree with the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
The specific requirement for the subordinate legislation procedures to include provision for consultation with business representatives is not limited by the general duty in the new clause. We want it to be clear that the assembly cannot avoid consulting business representatives about regulatory appraisals under clause 64 by carrying out more general consultation under new clause 19.
I am sure that new clause 19 will be warmly welcomed by business in Wales as proof of our commitment to a positive partnership between the assembly and the business sector. I ask the House to agree that the new clause be added to the Bill.

Mr. Jenkin: I had hoped for a grudging acknowledgement of our contribution to the new clause—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State acknowledged a contribution from a Labour Member, but I seem to remember that we had a constructive debate about appliance cost assessments and the need for the Welsh assembly to produce them when legislating.
There were exchanges in Committee about whether it was necessary to include in the Bill a requirement for compliance cost assessments. The Minister replying at the time said that legislation always provided for them, so it was not necessary to mention them specifically in the Bill. However, plenty of legislation does not provide for them because they were not in vogue when that particular

legislation was passed, although a reference to them would have been a useful addition. To some extent, consultation with business is a mild substitute for the requirement to carry out compliance cost assessments.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am sorry if I inadvertently offended the hon. Gentleman—had I done it deliberately, it would have been another matter. I mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) because it was her amendment that gave rise to the debate, but I fully acknowledge the support that came from all parts of the Chamber, including from those on the Opposition Front Bench, when we debated the matter.

Mr. Jenkin: It was extremely gracious of the Secretary of State to acknowledge that. Having said that, I shall now sour the atmosphere again with a few acidic remarks.
The problem with a new clause of this nature is that it is so general that, as we saw from the Secretary of State's exchanges with the hon. Member for Llanelli, it could be interpreted so widely.

Mr. Llew Smith: Blaenau Gwent.

Mr. Jenkin: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ron Davies: You had better apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).

Mr. Jenkin: I am in a hole, but I shall not dig any deeper.
The Secretary of State serenaded the new clause and said that it was not "rigid", but that leaves a bit to be desired. Not only does it not specify the business representatives who should be consulted—every quarter of the House will have its own ideas about who those representatives should be, thus rendering the new clause almost meaningless—but the Secretary of State compounded the error by going on to talk about "both sides of business". In fact, the modem idea is that we do not divide business into sides. Employers and shareholders should be treated as a single unit, working harmoniously and co-operatively together for the benefit of the business, its customers and the community as a whole.
However, it would be churlish of us not to welcome the new clause. As I said, it is not a proper substitute for compliance cost assessments, which is what business really wants. Business wants a clear explanation of the costs and benefits of particular legislation and how it will impact on its affairs in particular, and on business in general.
It is too easy for legislators—we are setting up another body of legislators—to have good ideas which can prove hugely costly to the people on the ground who have to implement them. We are already living in an over-regulated society, and I fear that new clause 19 will not protect business from the tendency of legislators to over-regulate.
As for amendment No. 204 tabled by Plaid Cymru, I am at a loss to know why that party wishes to delete any obligation to consult businesses on the particular issue of subordinate legislation, because it seems that that is the very point at which an input from business should be most valuable. After all, it is business that ultimately generates


the wealth that will pay the taxes that will fund the activities of the Welsh assembly. If the assembly cannot even curtsey in the direction of business when it is legislating, there ain't much hope for the way the assembly is going to function for the benefit of Wales.
One would hope that such invocations would not be necessary if the assembly were doing its job properly. I wonder whether the new clause is really an expression of faith in the assembly, or an anticipation by the Secretary of State of the assembly's shortcomings.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I am grateful to the Secretary of State and to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for telling the House the purpose of amendment No. 204 before we had even spoken to it. I can now deal with their opposition to it, instead of putting my positive arguments.
Let me make it clear at the outset that it is not our intention specifically to remove the assembly's obligation to consult business. It is a probing amendment. Under clause 64, there is an obligation on the assembly to consult business but no one else. It refers to "appropriate consultation" being carried out, but what does that mean? Consultation with whom, and with what sorts of organisations? The only clarity in the clause is that business must be consulted; there is no obligation to consult anyone else.
The amendment aims to probe what sort of organisations it is expected that the assembly will consult. For example, will it consult voluntary organisations?
If the assembly is considering subordinate legislation that affects nursery education, would it have to consult, let us say, Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin—the Pre-school Playgroups Association Wales—or not? One might read the Bill and say it might do so, "if appropriate", but the assembly might consider it not appropriate to do so. However, even on nursery education, it would have to consult business.
With the amendment, we are seeking clarity. Unfortunately, the Bill as it stands provides clarity in respect of one particular section of society, but not others. That is not to say, as the Secretary of State has stressed, that business would not be consulted; but we want to know what other organisations should be consulted. The danger in legislation is always that, if we begin to list, we either list the lot or we list nobody. That is why we tabled the amendment.
8 pm
The hon. Member for North Essex knows perfectly well that we support new clause 19 as drafted. I put it on record that there is no question of Plaid Cymru saying that business should not be consulted. However, let me make a point that even the hon. Gentleman did not make.
The Secretary of State has said that business in the modern sense includes both business organisations in the traditional sense and trade unions. We welcome that assurance, but I hope that business in Wales does not simply mean the CBI, either. We want an assurance that business in that sense means business in the widest sense.
The vast majority of employers in my constituency are self-employed people who run small businesses, and it has been announced in the past few weeks that an organisation that represents such businesses—the Federation of Smal

Businesses—is, in preparation for the setting up of the assembly, establishing a Welsh organisation; it is to be congratulated on that creditable action. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that there will be an obligation under the terms of the new clause for the assembly to consult the Federation of Small Businesses?

Mr. Llew Smith: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already stated that he is willing to include trade unions in his definition of business, but let us assume that the assembly takes some initiative in relation to the environment, and that it decides that it is necessary to consult business. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the assembly should also be under an obligation to consult the local community, who may be affected by business or believe that their area has been polluted by business? They may feel that they have no voice if their role is not specified in the legislation.

Mr. Jones: I must confess that I strongly agree with those sentiments. The assembly should consult to the widest possible extent—hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree on that point. We are asking the Secretary of State, in a probing way, to give an assurance that, through clauses 64 and new clause 19, there will be an obligation on the assembly to consult. If he gives that assurance, we will be satisfied; otherwise, the questions marks will remain.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Perhaps to his surprise, I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) says. I welcome the new clause as far as it goes, although I was surprised to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State overturn 500 years of case law by suggesting that "business" included trade unions. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor will want to have a word with him tomorrow about that legal interpretation, but we shall leave that point for now. I understand business to mean business, but there is nothing wrong with the new clause for that.
We tend to be rather romantic about the Welsh assembly, so by all means let us consult business. Business is important, because the main challenge facing the assembly will be to try to raise the level of gross domestic product in Wales, which has fallen dangerously low, especially in the western part of Wales, both north-west and south-west. Perhaps the challenge will not be to raise, but merely to sustain, the abysmally low level of GDP, given the pressures that may be exerted on the Welsh economy over the next few years.
However, the assembly is not about business—it is about doling out money. The assembly is about spending £7 billion, almost all of which will not go to business or anywhere near it. About £200 million gross will be the budget of the new-style Welsh Development Agency, but the net figure will probably be less, because the agency will have to find some of its budget from its internal organisation. Therefore, we are not talking about large sums of money.
The assembly is there to distribute money for social purposes, which has to be done—we need a health service and education—so the larger part of the work of the assembly will not be about business. The new clause is welcome for that reason, because it can make it clear to the assembly that business exists, and that business is as important as handing out money. What worries me is that the whole orientation of the Bill is not in that direction.
One of the clauses not debated—clause 112, which has already been mentioned—deals with voluntary organisations in Wales and enables the assembly to set up a scheme to assist voluntary organisations. Such organisations are defined extremely strangely as organisations that do not have to make a profit, but exist to
benefit the whole or any part of Wales".
I cannot think of any definition wider, more diffuse or more dangerous in some ways than that. The whole thrust of the legislation is that money is to be spent on non-business matters and on organisations that will not create wealth. Trade unions and employees are part of the wealth-creating process.
I rose to speak in this debate because a constituent who has a master's in business administration wrote to me enclosing the Labour party's person specification for candidates for the assembly. I am sure that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) will jump, because understands the magical language that includes such phrases. The person specification I was sent seeks, rightly, "Labour party experience". In another phrase that the hon. Gentleman will recognise, it also seeks "life experiences".

Mr. Öpik: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds, let me categorically state that I have not been moonlighting on behalf of the Labour party in any management consultancy context in respect of its selection procedures.

Mr. Davies: From what I know of management consultants, that is a great relief.
The person specification calls for "Other life experience". I am not quite sure how one is to read those words—whether the experience desired is of the other life or of another life outside the Labour party, although I suspect it is the latter. I am concerned because, during the referendum campaign, great emphasis was placed, quite rightly, on the fact that the assembly would be an assembly for business as well as for the rather old-fashioned councillors from south Wales; but when I read the person specification's suggestions of what constitutes other life experience, I saw no mention of business at all.
We note that
Family and other caring responsibilities
are considered to be other life experience for the purposes of sitting in the Welsh assembly. I suppose one could consider "work/professional" to mean business, but the suggestions go on to cover "educational" experience and "Voluntary sector experience", neither of which involves business—quite the opposite. Appearing next are "tenants groups", which are certainly not business; "youthwork", which might possibly be related to business; and
community involvement, PTA, charity work",
which are not. Those are followed by "campaigning experience", whatever that may mean. Then there is
Public service experience … local government, trade union".
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) will be pleased to learn that the trade unions come under the heading of "Other life experience",

but there is nothing about business. The category ends with "magistrate, school governorship", which again have nothing to do with business. No doubt the Liberals have a similar classification, taken from a similar management consultancy booklet or whatever. However, I am sorry to say that there is nothing in the Labour party person specification about business. No suggestion is made that part of the "Other life experience" should be business.
I welcome the new clause, because at least it tries to make it clear that the £7 billion ultimately comes from business. I do not want to upset my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, so I shall define business in the novel way used by the Secretary of State, including trade unions, shareholders and employees. All those people create the wealth.
I hope that the assembly will pay attention to a clause such as new clause 19, because, if we do not have that wealth creation in Wales, however much money or subsidy comes to Wales from the United Kingdom Treasury, or from Europe—there will probably be less of it in the next few years—the other activities will suffer. We must place an emphasis on business.
I am sorry that the Labour party appears to have ignored business completely in its person specification, but at least we are making up for that to some extent in the new clause.

Mr. Öpik: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who is obviously a key player in the ball park, and who is absolutely right to run the idea up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes—classic phrases from the books he describes.
Four of the five hon. Members who tabled new clause 19 are Liberal Democrats, because we unequivocally support the Bill. In earlier debates, some hon. Members have feared comparisons with business, which is fair enough, but when I think of the word "business", I think not only of the big companies but of the smaller companies and of the individuals who form 30 per cent. of business people in areas such as mid-Wales.
The Federation of Conservative—oh dear, a blast from the past. Let me say that again. The Federation of Small Businesses would very much corroborate the importance of small business in Wales. At the moment, sadly, especially in mid-Wales, rural areas are suffering a deep recession. I mean not just the closure of larger companies, such as D. C. Evans, but the terrible cash flow problems that are being experienced by farmers, who are small business people. They feel fed up and let down by the current Government, as they felt fed up and let down by the Government who preceded them. An assembly is their best hope for a medium-term reprieve from the suffocation that they experience—in their view, due to insensitive handling of rural issues by both Governments.
The assembly, by listening and using its powers, can definitely make a difference to the quality of life and, more to the point, the economic performance of Wales as a whole and the rural areas in particular.
We have made this criticism previously, so I shall not dwell on it, but it is a matter of regret to Liberal Democrats that the assembly will not have more powers to influence the economic development of Wales. Nevertheless, it will have an important role in lobbying the Secretary of State for Wales and the Westminster Parliament, to ensure that Wales's voice is heard.
We all agreed with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that politics is not a business—not simply a question of pounds and pence. However, the voice of business is the voice of the working people. When we remember that business is not just LG, Laura Ashley and Control Techniques, but Peter Burt the publican, Nick Bates the farmer and Neil Badger the photographer, business takes on the face and personality of the people who keep Wales trading.
We believe that politicians can learn from business people, just as business people can gain an immense amount by becoming aware of the social environment in which they trade. That is why we warmly welcome new clause 19.

Ms Jackie Lawrence: Because it was I who requested that the business issue be raised in the context of the assembly, I was stunned by the comments of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who first tried to claim credit for raising the issue and then said that he regarded the new clause as almost useless. There is considerable confusion on the Conservative Benches as to how the Opposition stand on that issue.
I very much welcome the fact that the Secretary of State wishes new clause 19 to be incorporated in the Bill, because it is a sign of a determination in the assembly to have a framework of wholesale co-operation between all sectors of society and all the people of Wales.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) asked, "Why just business?" but the Bill already contains a system for consultation of the voluntary sector. We also have a system, through the Partnership Council for Wales, for consultation on educational matters. It was for that reason that I first raised the issue of consultation with business. At that stage, although there was an innovative approach for a reactive consultation with business, I felt that it should be proactive, not only to obtain benefits on compliance costs, as the Opposition said, but to give the assembly the very positive and pragmatic benefits of business sector expertise.
It is vital that small businesses are represented in the consultative process, especially in the light of the fact that a recent European Commission report says that new jobs are most likely to come from small businesses. Those businesses need the means to communicate effectively with the assembly to maximise job creation.
8.15 pm
It is important to consult business. I have just returned from Catalonia, which has a 20-year record of devolution. The enthusiasm demonstrated there, the co-operation between all sectors in the region, and the confidence arising from that, which has enabled people to portray what their area has to offer, were very welcome.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said something about the assembly doing little more than doling out money. My vision, and the reason that I wanted business to be consulted, is that the purpose of the assembly is to give the Welsh people democratic control of things that affect their everyday lives. That goes for everyone in Wales—and for the businesses in Wales, to which we look for our economic future.

Mr. John Smith: I shall speak briefly but warmly in support of new clause 19. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on presenting the new clause, because it strikes exactly the right note in terms of the relationship between the new assembly and business in Wales. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on bringing the matter to the notice of the House by tabling her new clause 14 in Committee. She rightly withdrew that new clause for what is now a better clause and a better piece of legislation.
I spoke in support of new clause 14 in Committee, but with a note of caution, based on my experience of more than five years, from 1992 to 1997, working with one of the biggest partnerships between private business, Government and Government agencies in Wales. It was one of the most successful partnerships in contributing to, and attracting, inward investment to Wales. We attracted a higher proportion of inward investment to that part of Wales during that period than any other region and, by and large, it was due to that relationship.
However, one cannot legislate a formula, which is why new clause 19 is so good. One cannot embody in law what that partnership with business should be. It is my passionate belief that the secret of a successful relationship between Government and business is to evolve an innovative relationship, which does not try to get either partner to do what it cannot do. It allows each partner to do what it does best, without interference. That was the secret of our experience, and I think that it is the secret for future success in Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) is right when he says that the greatest problem facing the new assembly will be gross domestic product per capita in Wales, which is in relative decline when compared to GDP in the rest of the United Kingdom. If we do not address that problem by working in partnership with the wealth creators, with business in Wales, we shall certainly have a problem.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a need to include the word "business" in the Bill, in the sense that there is a need to consult business? Does he accept also that, within the proposed legislation, we should have included a reference to local communities, which may have been adversely affected as a result of the activities of business? For example, if a firm is set up in a community and as a result that community is polluted, the assembly would have an obligation to consult the firm, or the polluter, but not the local community that has been polluted by the activities of the firm. Should we not extend the list of those who should be consulted?

Mr. Smith: I understand that there is a commitment to sustainable development. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must consult and we must protect people, but that should be done under a separate mechanism. The challenge facing us is the future success of Welsh business.
Those who cast doubts on the ability of the Welsh people and the Welsh assembly to work in partnership with business should re-examine the track record of local government in Wales and its success in partnership with business. Local government and business worked together as a team. We in Wales are better able and better prepared


than others, partly because of our co-operative values, to work closely in partnership with business and to make a damned good success of that approach. We have done so in the past despite, on occasions, the activities of some Tory Secretaries of State for Wales over the past 10 years, who have done business in Wales no favours. Local government in partnership with business has been responsible for our success in attracting foreign investment, I stress, into Wales.

Mr. Llew Smith: I accept that the proposed legislation may be committed to sustainable development, but will my hon. Friend accept that, even allowing for that, it is likely that some firms in Wales will continue to pollute communities? Perhaps there should be written into the Bill an obligation that consultation should take place with those who are being polluted by particular firms.

Mr. Smith: I think that that should be covered generally by environmental protection legislation. I think also that my hon. Friend's argument detracts slightly from the new clause, which I wish to address.

Ms Lawrence: My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) has been an advocate of strong local government. Do we not agree that the avenue for tackling issues such as the pollution of communities where such communities have a direct input is through strong local government? The assembly will strengthen local government to allow that to happen.

Mr. Smith: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend.
Finally, the clause is exactly what we want to see. The answer is to have a broad framework of bodies to consult and to have a dialogue with business in Wales. In the end, the secret will be for business to make its own contribution to the success of the Welsh economy by forming private sector-led partnerships that are broadly coterminous with the new regional committees that will be set up by the Welsh assembly. I welcome the new clause.

Mr. Ron Davies: I thank all those who have expressed their support for the new clause. I shall concentrate on the points raised by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). I ask for his forgiveness if he thinks that I was rather precipitate in explaining his new clause before he introduced it. However, the hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions and I shall respond to them. That will give me the opportunity to respond also to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith).
First, the hon. Member for Ynys Môn raised the problem that is inherent in a new clause of the sort that is before us. The hon. Gentleman described it as the problem of listing. It is true that, once we start to place an obligation on a body such as the assembly to consult one group, it may well be asked why it should not consult other groups. The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the voluntary sector. I draw his attention to clauses 111 and 112, which set out the mechanism by which the assembly can establish good relations both with local government and the voluntary sector. Clause 112 refers specifically to a relationship with voluntary organizations.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on introducing her amendment in Committee. My hon. Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent was absolutely correct. It is local government that will—

Mr. Llew Smith: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: No, I am sorry. I have to put my case. I cannot give way at the moment. If I have time, I shall give way.
My hon. Friend raised a fair point, and I understand his argument. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire was right when she said that it is for local government to represent communities. We have set out in clause 111 how we see relations with local government developing.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn referred to the Federation of Small Businesses, and asked whether our definitions would include the federation. He will be interested to know that the federation, along with the Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry, made a formal submission to the Welsh Office. They are content with the form of words that we have used. As I said in my opening remarks, we believe that it is right to leave it to the assembly to judge which representatives of business it is appropriate for it to consult.
No doubt there will be changes over time, and I certainly do not want to be too prescriptive at this moment and place a legal obligation on the assembly which might cause it difficulties in future. It is right, therefore, to place a duty but to give maximum discretion to the assembly to develop the duty as it thinks best.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn referred to the provisions that are set out in clause 64, which deals with consultation on regulatory appraisals. The clause provides that there should be procedures for "appropriate consultation" where
the costs … of complying with
the assembly's
subordinate legislation are likely to be significant".
The consultation that will be appropriate in those circumstances will vary from case to case. It could include, under clause 64, consultation with, for example, the voluntary sector, charities, local authorities and environmental groups. That is providing some redress in terms of the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent.
It must be right that the assembly tailors its consultation to meet the prevailing circumstances. The circumstances will obviously change from case to case. If the assembly failed to consult in a way that would be reasonable, that would increase the risk that it might be subject to challenge by way of judicial review for failing to comply with its duty under clause 64. I hope that hon. Members are reassured, and that the new clause will not be pressed to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 27

POWER TO PROMOTE AND OPPOSE PRIVATE BILLS

—(1) The Assembly may promote private bills in Parliament and may oppose any private bill in Parliament.

(2) But the Assembly shall not promote or oppose any private bill in Parliament unless a motion to authorise the Assembly to promote or oppose the bill is passed by the Assembly on a vote in which at least two-thirds of the Assembly members voting support the motion.

(3) Subsection (1) shall not cause the Assembly to have power to apply for orders under section 1 or 3 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 by virtue of section 20 of that Act (which gives a body with power to promote and oppose private bills power to apply for and object to such orders).'.[Mr. Ron Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause fulfils the undertaking that 1 gave to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 2 March in response to an amendment that he had moved. The new clause clarifies that the assembly will have power to promote or oppose private Bills in Parliament, but the clause does not confer on the assembly the power to make primary legislation. It will be able to promote only a private Bill in Parliament.
Subsection (2) of the new clause provides for a decision by the assembly to promote or oppose a private Bill in Parliament to require a two-thirds majority. That is appropriate in order to ensure that the decision by the assembly to promote or oppose a Bill is not taken lightly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that explanation.
As I said in Committee, we have looked further at the interaction between an explicit power for the assembly and the Transport and Works Act 1992. Subsection (3) deals with that. It provides that the new clause does not cause the assembly to have power to apply for orders under section 103 of the 1992 Act by virtue of section 20 of that Act, because that would, in effect, give the assembly primary powers—and I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want me to do that.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has answered one of the two points that we raised. The other point was whether we could dispose of private legislation within the assembly. I hope that we may be able to do that at some time in the future. However, I am grateful for small mercies.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.

Mr. Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way that we can discuss new clause 31 before we move on? It is a completely new clause that introduces a completely new—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no. He must know that the programme was approved by the House and that this is not the first day upon which we have dealt with the legislation. There is no way that new clause 31 may be discussed under the terms of the motion that the House has agreed.
It being half-past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New clause 31

POLLS FOR ASCERTAINING VIEW OF THE PUBLIC

'.—(1) The Assembly may hold a poll in an area consisting of Wales or any part (or parts) of Wales for the purpose of ascertaining the views of those polled about whether or how any of the Assembly's functions (other than those under section 34) should be exercised.

(2) The persons entitled to vote in a poll under this section are those who—

(a) would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in an electoral area wholly or partly included in the area in which the poll is held, and
(b) are registered in the register of local government electors at an address within the area in which the poll is held.
(3) The Assembly may not delegate the function of deciding—

(a) whether to hold a poll under this section,
(b) when, and in which area, a poll is to be held, and
(c) the wording of any questions or propositions to be put to those polled.
(4) The Assembly may by order make provision as to the conduct of polls (or any poll) under this section.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the combination of polls (or any poll) under this section with polls at any elections.
(6) An order under subsection (4) or (5) may apply or incorporate, with or without modifications or exceptions, any provision of or made under any enactment relating to any elections; and the provision which may be made under subsection (4) includes, in particular, provision for disregarding alterations in a register of electors.
(7) The costs of polls under this section shall be met by the Assembly.'.[Mr. Ron Davies]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

'(1) The subordinate legislation procedures must include provision for ensuring that, before a draft of a statutory instrument containing Assembly general subordinate legislation is laid before the Assembly, the draft is—

(a) submitted to a committee consisting of all Members of the House of Commons representing constituencies in Wales; and
(b) approved by that committee.

(2) When any draft is submitted to the committee under this section, the committee shall report within a reasonable period as to whether it approves the draft.'.[Mr. Evans.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Evans: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Reports prepared under Part IV—


'The Secretary of State, Comptroller and Auditor General, Auditor General for Wales and the Assembly shall lay before both Houses of Parliament any statement prepared under Part IV of this Act.'.

New clause 15—Relations with House of Commons

'.—(1) The standing orders of the Assembly may make provision for the agreement by the Assembly and publication by it of proposed amendments to any bill to which this subsection applies.
(2) Subsection (1) applies to any public bill affecting Wales in any of the fields referred to in Schedule 2 which has received a second reading in the House of Commons.
(3) The standing orders of the Assembly may make provision for the publication of draft public bills affecting Wales in any of the fields referred to in Schedule 2.
(4) Proposed amendments and proposed bills published under subsections (1) or (3) shall be laid before the House of Commons by the Secretary of State, and that House shall make provision for such amendments and bills to be considered.
(5) Nothing in subsection (4) shall require the House of Commons to consider amendments or bills published by the Assembly if those amendments or bills do not conform with any rule of the House.'.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss new clause 2 and new clause 6 even if we did not have the opportunity to discuss new clause 31—a clause that we never debated and did not have the opportunity to amend. I think that that demonstrates clearly the need for the extra day that we requested.
The proposed new clauses present another opportunity to improve the Bill. Although they are relatively short, they are none the less important, because they refer to the relationship between the assembly and Westminster. We must recognise that such a relationship must exist, even though powers are being devolved through the Secretary of State to the new body. While recognising the supremacy of Westminster, we must ensure that there is a real partnership between the assembly and this Parliament. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) referred to partnership time and again.
Consideration of the new clauses provides another opportunity to examination the checks and balances that will be necessary within the new assembly. There is an on-going debate in this place about what should happen to the other place. Despite that debate, no one disputes the fact that there should be a second Chamber—we all believe that another body should revise the legislation that passes through this place, and hopefully improve it. Perhaps the other place will improve the legislation that we are considering today.
In new clause 2, we have attempted to introduce a check and balance within the assembly while trying to ensure that the partnership between Westminster and the assembly continues. It appears that most Labour Members of Parliament at Westminster will remain here—there may be one exception—and not go to the new assembly. Therefore, we must ensure that they have a proper role. We are not sure what will happen to the Welsh Grand Committee; we do not know whether it will continue and whether it will have any real role.

Mr. Ron Davies: Not for you.

Mr. Evans: We already know that. The Conservative party, which received 317,000 votes in Wales, has no voice on the Welsh Grand Committee.
New clause 2 does not refer to the Welsh Grand Committee as such because we know that, in the past, hon. Members representing constituencies outside Wales have served on the Committee. We have said that all 40 Members of Parliament who represent Welsh constituencies at Westminster and who have a real stake and a real interest in what occurs in Wales will also have more than a passing interest in what happens in the Welsh assembly. Some hon. Members may have a dual mandate—we do not know. However, the vast majority of Labour Members representing Welsh constituencies will remain in Westminster.
New clause 2 provides a real opportunity for secondary or subordinate legislation in the assembly to come to a Committee of the House consisting solely of Welsh Members of Parliament. They may then scrutinise the legislation and approve or not approve it within a reasonable time. As far as we are concerned, it is a very reasonable new clause. We do not propose that the body should delay subordinate legislation needlessly for months on end. We want to ensure that such legislation is passed as quickly as possible.

Mr. Dalyell: What would happen if Welsh Members in Westminster disapproved of such legislation?

Mr. Evans: Because of the supremacy of Parliament, the Welsh assembly would have to reconsider its decisions and change its mind. In the final instance, Westminster would be supreme. [Interruption.] I hear what the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) says from a sedentary position. The Secretary of State for Wales admits that Westminster will remain the supreme body, even after devolution. We are simply formalising the arrangement to ensure that the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire has something to do other than sit behind the Secretary of State—whether it is the present Secretary of State or a new one—and offer advice from a sedentary position.

Mr. Dalyell: I wish to record that, judging by his expression, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) does not agree.

Mr. Evans: That comes as no surprise to me. The journey on devolved Government that I am making is completely different from that of the right hon. Gentleman. He is following a route to independence that has no exit lanes. Therefore, I am not surprised by his reaction—in fact, I would be surprised if he had done anything other than look rather concerned about this suggestion.
New clause 6 concerns the relationship between Westminster and the new assembly. Part IV deals with financial matters, including grants and loans to the assembly, expenditure, remuneration expenses, accounts, examinations into the use of resources and Audit Committee reports. It goes from the famous clause 80, under which the Secretary of State will, from time to time, give money to the assembly, down to clause 104. The new clause would ensure that statements are laid before Parliament for scrutiny. Parliament remains the sovereign political body in the United Kingdom, and should have access to the details of public expenditure for scrutiny, particularly as they originate from this Parliament and are devolved to the assembly.
The Treasury is responsible for allocating the budget to the assembly and should be accountable to Parliament for such matters. It is a basic democratic demand that information on the assembly's expenditure should be available for debate in Parliament. Our two new clauses would ensure that the assembly will be a greater success, and that the partnership between Westminster and the assembly will be assured into the future.

Mr. Ron Davies: New clause 2 would place new procedural burdens on the assembly in respect of its order-making powers. Under the new clause, no order could be made by the assembly without its first having secured the approval of a Committee of Members of Parliament from Welsh constituencies.
Since we first debated the subordinate legislation procedures, my right hon. Friend the President of the Council has submitted a lengthy and detailed memorandum to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, on both the Scottish Parliament's and the Welsh assembly's order-making powers. It summarises the provisions in the Government of Wales Bill related to the making of assembly orders. It also explains that my advisory group will consult widely in Wales after Easter about the detailed Standing Orders that the assembly should have for the exercise of its order-making powers.
The group is anxious that there should be greater public involvement in the making of subordinate legislation in Wales, and wants the Standing Orders to reflect that approach. I am minded to accept the group's advice on these matters. I hope that hon. Members present will find the Joint Committee report interesting, and I trust that the Joint Committee will find the memorandum helpful.
Unfortunately, I do not find new clause 2 at all helpful. I see no case for requiring the assembly's draft orders to be submitted to a special Committee of the House for approval. That proposition is entirely inconsistent with the most basic assumptions behind devolution: that the assembly will be a responsible, democratic body and will be well able to exercise its powers sensibly without constant supervision from the centre. Given the number of orders that the assembly will have to make, the proposal is wholly impractical. I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will withdraw the new clause.
New clause 6 provides that any statement under part IV must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. Its effect is not altogether certain, because the term "statement" may not include accounts and reports, although I assume that that was the intention. It is unnecessary in most circumstances. Clauses 83 and 88 already provide for the Secretary of State's accounts to be laid before each House of Parliament by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I appreciate that they may not have been the main target of the proposal.
The Secretary of State will be accountable to the House for the grant that he or she pays to the assembly each year under clause 80. He or she will seek approval for that grant through a supply estimate, in the same way as at present. Those accounts will continue to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before Parliament.
We must recognise that the role of the House in approving public expenditure for Wales will change as a result of devolution, and the same holds true for Scotland. The House will no longer approve detailed financial

allocations for the Secretary of State for Wales, because the grant to the assembly will be a single, unhypothecated sum.
The way in which the assembly decides to use the money that it receives from the Secretary of State will be a matter for it alone. It will be accountable to the electorate in Wales for its decisions. Its accounts will be audited by the independent Auditor General for Wales, laid before the assembly and published. Providing for the assembly's accounts to be laid at Westminster would tend to undermine the change in responsibilities, and would blur accountability.
Although only the Auditor General for Wales will have responsibility for auditing the accounts of the assembly and its public bodies, the Bill provides for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have access for the purposes of value-for-money examinations and financial investigations. That is dealt with in clauses 100 and 101.
The Bill acknowledges that the Public Accounts Committee will also have a role. Clause 98 provides for the assembly's accounting officer to have responsibilities to the Public Accounts Committee. Similar responsibilities will be placed on accounting officers of other public bodies in Wales by Government amendments Nos. 109, 177 and 180, which we shall debate later.
Part IV provides appropriate mechanisms for accountability to Parliament that nevertheless reflect the fundamental changes in democratic accountability inherent in the process of devolution.
I appreciate that new clause 15 may be an attempt to draw out the Government's thinking on how the assembly could influence the content of legislation at Westminster.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I hope to finish shortly so that the right hon. Gentleman can make his speech on new clause 15.

Mr. Wigley: I was going to invite the Secretary of State to leave his speech at this point, so that I can explain the reasons for new clause 15 before he puts the arguments against it.

Mr. Davies: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Secretary of State was premature in seeking to catch my eye and perhaps I was premature in calling him. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I am sure that the Secretary of State is keen to hear the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. Perhaps the Secretary of State could finish this part of his speech and seek to catch my eye again.

Mr. Davies: I appreciate that new clause 15 may be an attempt to draw out the Government's thinking on how the assembly would influence the content of legislation at Westminster. It would be inappropriate for me to speculate any further until I have heard the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for interrupting his speech. I dare say that his notes will be just as relevant when he has heard what I have to say because I realise that responses are written before speeches are made.
I am glad of the opportunity to speak to new clause 15 because it addresses a material question. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was concerned about the role of Welsh Members at Westminster on matters arising from the assembly. The new clause sets out an excellent work load that can be passed on constructively. It deals with Bills that have had their Second Reading at Westminster and which affect matters that have been devolved to the assembly for executive and secondary legislative purposes. The assembly may take a view on the impact of legislation that is going through this place and, from its experience of executive responsibilities, especially for Welsh local government, for the Welsh language and for education in Wales, on all of which we have our own agenda, it may want to table amendments to the primary legislation. However, it does not have a vehicle to do that directly, because it cannot undertake primary legislation.
The new clause contains a mechanism by which, after Second Reading of a Bill, it will be possible for the assembly to present draft amendments for consideration here. They can be debated by Welsh Members and by Members from elsewhere. Unless the Bill contains such a provision, there will be great frustration, because members of the assembly will deal daily with such matters and with the implications of legislation in a different way from Welsh Members at Westminster. The absence of a mechanism to allow amendments or to close a loophole in primary legislation affecting Wales would cause difficulties.
The Secretary of State has almost accepted the principle. In an earlier debate, I was glad to be able to thank him for the way in which he is to enable private legislation to be brought from the assembly to Westminster. Private legislation may affect only a few square miles of Wales, and it is much more important for legislation affecting the whole of Wales on local government, education or the Welsh language to be treated in the same way. The wording of the new clause may not be appropriate, but I urge the Secretary of State to consider between now and the Bill reaching the other place whether there should be some formal mechanism to enable the assembly to have its wishes brought here.
We should bear in mind that the political colour of an administration in the assembly may be different from the colour of the Government at Westminster. The assembly may want action that the Government do not want to facilitate, and there should at least be an opportunity for the assembly's voice to be heard, although it would finally have to accept Parliament's determination on the primary legislation. The proposal is modest, and I shall be interested to hear the Secretary of State's considered response.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As a United Kingdom MP, I can contain myself no longer from intruding on Welsh affairs. Having listened to the debate, I am certain that this arrangement cannot endure into the next Parliament or the one after that. In view of the Government's majority, it will probably endure quite easily in this Parliament. It is quite clear to an outsider that both sides are saying, "Get your tanks off my lawn." What was equally clear in that good-tempered exchange

of bonhomie was that the Opposition Front-Bench team has a completely different interpretation of what we are discussing from the Government Front-Bench team and indeed from the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). They cannot all be right.
It was clear from the passionate intervention sotto voce by my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) that he thought that there was absolutely no question of Westminster telling the Welsh assembly what to do in matters that pertain to it, but there is a little problem of pipers and tunes and who pays the money for all this. The time will come, sooner rather than later, when Westminster will say, "Hey, we're a bit strapped for cash," and look hard at the aspirations of the Welsh assembly. Therein lies a source of considerable trouble.
I do not want to intrude any further, but I say here and now that it is fanciful to believe that this situation can endure in a Parliament where the political arithmetic is different, especially when the votes of Welsh and Scottish Members could determine the shape, colour and policies of a Government of England.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I will not follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) down the path of tanks and so on, which is rather emotive. I understand why he uses those similes, but I do not think that things will go that way. New clause 2 sabotages the assembly's ability to have a proper say even in the few legislative powers that it has in relation to draft statutory instruments. As we know, the new clause says:
before a draft of a statutory instrument containing Assembly general subordinate legislation is laid before the Assembly, the draft is—
(a) submitted to a committee consisting of all Members of the House of Commons representing constituencies in Wales".
It also says:
the committee shall report within a reasonable period as to whether it approves the draft.
Being a reasonable man, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) used sweet reason in trying to persuade us that all would be well, but the interpretation of what is a reasonable period is as long as my arm and his combined. It could be any period. The new clause could be used as a delaying mechanism to frustrate the Welsh assembly. We do not see the point of going down that path.
On new clause 6 and scrutiny, as has been said, in any case, those accounts are laid before both the assembly and the House. Indeed, if it so wished, the Public Accounts Committee could probably examine the Welsh assembly's accounts as audited at any particular moment. We therefore feel that the safeguards are already there and that there is no need to accept new clause 6.
We agree that new clause 15 is useful. It allows the Welsh assembly to propose draft amendments to Bills. Obviously, if it so wishes, the House could reject those drafts; it could exercise that power. In any case, the new clause proposes draft amendments to Bills that directly affect only Wales. We support the new clause.

Mr. Grieve: I should like to address my remarks to new clause 2 and new clause 15—the latter is the reverse of the former. The debate—and particularly the speech by


the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—has been interesting. It appears to me that we have been labouring under a delusion that subordinate legislation is in some way different from primary legislation in terms of its impact on people. It is not. It creates criminal offences and, if it is not properly drafted, it can create enormous problems. There is ample evidence to suggest that it is often not properly drafted.
The new clauses are about the desire of Westminster to retain some measure of control over the way in which subordinate legislation goes through. Not surprisingly, new clause 15 expresses the desire of the Welsh nationalists that, when the assembly is set up, they should have some input into the primary legislation from which the subordinate legislation will be derived.
The Secretary of State mentioned the report produced by the President of the Council to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It is abundantly clear that, unless some mechanism is set up—admittedly, it would not go as far as new clause 2—to allow some input into the way in which the statutory instruments are drafted in Wales, we will be in a difficult position.
Last week there was a meeting between the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and representatives of the European Parliament to discuss the problem of subordinate legislation. It is quite apparent that, at the European level, there is no control over subordinate legislation, and that is a cause for concern. It was a topic that we discussed at some length. It emerged powerfully from the representations by Speaker's Counsel on the issue that, although the Joint Committee has no power to alter statutory instruments, its ability to report on them at least ensures a measure of conformity and that, on the whole, Government Departments listen to what we have to say.
The Secretary of State said that the Welsh assembly would have its own Speaker's Counsel and Department and that there was no reason why it should not do the job just as well as we do it here, although I have always thought that the job that we do here is thoroughly imperfect because we are not given the proper tools with which to do it. However, the fact remains that we live in a United Kingdom, and Wales and England share a common legal system. Although some statutory instruments are exclusive to Wales, a large number will be common to both.
In those circumstances, will statutory instruments be drafted differently as a result of exercises in semantics which may have profound implications if they are every challenged in the courts? What will we do when people in Wales tell their Members of Parliament that they are having regulations foisted upon them through statutory instruments which are imperfect compared with those that were passed for the same purpose here? The Secretary of State has never answered that question, and on the last occasion on which it was raised, he simply dismissed it.
I am taking the opportunity offered by new clause 2—perhaps slightly tendentiously—to ask him to reconsider it even in that most narrow ambit. I accept that new clause 2 goes far further, but it points up the enormous difficulty that results from splitting subordinate from primary legislation. We are not dealing with executive matters. The extent and range of subordinate legislation is so great that in many ways it affects people far more than the primary legislation. Unless that difficulty is resolved, we

shall continue to have problems. To some extent I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), because I am concerned that the matter must be addressed.

Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) is having difficulty in coming to terms with the principle of devolution, and I am afraid that he has completely overstated his case.
I want to talk briefly about new clause 15. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that we had accepted that the assembly could be involved in the promotion of private legislation, therefore that could be extended to public legislation. I do not accept that because there is such a fundamental difference between the two.
Paragraph 3.38 of the White Paper states:
The Bill would place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult the Assembly about the Government's programme for legislation after it has been announced in the Queen's Speech.
Clause 32 delivers on that commitment. The consultation under it is one way in which the assembly can influence the content of primary legislation. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that, relying on the powers in clause 34, the assembly could make appropriate representations to whomever it chose about any Bill before Parliament that affected Wales, whether or not that Bill related to the areas covered in schedule 2. Those representations might include suggested amendments; they could be published or sent to the appropriate Minister, or to any Member of this House or of the House of Lords. Obviously, it will be for the Government or Parliament, as the case may be, to decide what, if anything, they want to do in the light of the assembly's representations. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that point.
It would not be right for the Bill to require the Secretary of State to table the proposed amendments and to require this House to provide for them to be considered. The only restriction in new clause 15 is that the amendments would have to conform with the rules of the House—the new clause is somewhat impractical in that respect.
Let us assume that the assembly wished to propose an amendment to a Government Bill which directly contradicted the policy—
It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question negatived.

New clause 5

POWER TO ENTER INTO CONCORDAT

'No Minister of the Crown or Government Department shall enter into a concordat with the Assembly or a committee of the Assembly unless a draft of the concordat has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 9—Concordats between the Assembly and Departments of State—



'(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for concordats to be agreed between the Assembly and each department of state governing the relations between the Assembly and the departments.
(2) The Secretary of State shall, before the first ordinary election of the Assembly, lay before each House of Parliament the draft of on Order in Council under this section making provision for such concordats.
(3) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
New clause 10—Publication of concordats—

'.—(1) Where a concordat between the Assembly and a Minister of the Crown is agreed, the Assembly shall publish the text of the concordat within 7 days.
(2) Where an amendment to a concordat between the Assembly and a Minister of the Crown is agreed, the Assembly shall publish the text of the amendment within 7 days.'.
New clause 11—Amendments to concordats—
'.—No amendment to a concordat between the Assembly and a Minister of the Crown may be made without first having been agreed to by majority vote at a meeting of the Assembly.'.

Mr. Ancram: There is a saying about a house divided against itself. The Government may have to learn from recent experience.
The new clause has a simple purpose: it is to say that we are still here. So much of the legislation seems to concern moving responsibilities away from this House; the new clause is designed to bring those responsibilities back, especially as they relate to concordats.
I hope that the new clause will be regarded as innocuous enough, and that the Government will accept it. It goes to the very heart of the Government's attempts, ever since 1 May, increasingly to bypass Parliament. I was interested to watch the Secretary of State's impatience as the clock ticked towards the time when the last debate was supposed to end. I remind him that it was he who set the time limits, against the wishes of the Opposition. He should not, therefore, look impatient—

Mr. Ron Davies: That—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it—is a complete travesty of the truth. It was the Opposition who suggested that these matters be taken on the Floor of the House, a principle which I readily conceded. The Opposition have been party to the agreement all the way through, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government generously allowed two hours of additional time today in view of the brief statement at the end of Question Time. The only reason I was impatient was that I was anxious to reply to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was preventing me from doing so.

Mr. Ancram: That was not the first time this evening that the right hon. Gentleman has appeared impatient. Had he accepted our suggestions about the timetabling of these parts of the Bill, he would have had rather more time to make his case.
The Government's attempts to bypass Parliament really know no bounds. One of the few Divisions in which the Prime Minister has voted since 1 May was earlier today,

on the business motion governing today's debates. That is yet another example of the Government's disdain for the House.
Concordats may sound friendly, but when we begin to examine what they are and what they will do, we find them rather sinister. Earlier this year, we were helped by a Government written answer which had attached guidance setting out their view of the purpose and nature of these concordats. I have looked at that guidance with some care; rather than reassuring me, it has filled me with even deeper foreboding. It states:
Their purpose is not to create legal obligations or restrictions on any party; rather, they will set the ground rules for administrative co-operation and exchange of information.
Setting "the ground rules" sounds wonderful—as if the Government are setting the rules by which the game will be played. However, when we asked previously what the concordats were for, we were led to believe that they were not for administrative co-operation and exchange of information but for important matters like deciding how much money the Welsh assembly will get and how the voice of Wales will be heard in the European Council of Ministers. Those are not administrative, co-operative matters or exchanges of information; they are matters of fundamental importance to Wales and to this Parliament.
The next paragraph says:
Concordats are not necessarily the only way to regulate these relationships in future.
Good, say I—something better. Not at all. We are told:
Other, less formal, arrangements will be appropriate in many cases, and in others there will be no need for any standing arrangement at all.
We suddenly begin to see something that is highly alien to our democratic principles: the introduction of what have become known in America as "Executive agreements"—agreements not between legislatures, Parliaments or countries but between Administrations so that they can bypass democratic procedures.
The concordats will be used for exchange of information and
arrangements for liaison on EU and international matters".
By what right does a concordat that does not come before this House decide on matters of liaison within the European Union, or on other international matters? Are not those of concern to this House and to elected Members of the Welsh Assembly? How can they be dealt with on the same basis as the concordats?
The document also refers to "any financial arrangements", but are those the financial arrangements under clause 80? Do they relate to the Barnett formula? Will they all now be regulated by non-statutory, non-legally enforceable documents, which will become known as concordats?
Those are the reasons why, earlier in our proceedings, I tried to explore what the concordats were about. The document tells us firmly that they are non-statutory and not intended to be legally enforceable. That is interesting, because it gives rise to all sorts of questions. The document also says that they are not intended to impose duties and liabilities.

Mr. Letwin: Will my right hon. Friend speculate, given his knowledge of these matters, whether the statement that the concordats are not intended to be legally enforceable


is of the slightest legal interest? Does he agree that, over time, the courts might come to think that they are justiciable and perhaps even enforceable?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that, because it is one of the questions that I was going to ask the Secretary of State to respond to when he replies to the debate. Without having seen a concordat, 1 cannot take a view, but it might well found an action for judicial review, for instance. In a sense, that would then bring into question whether it was creating obligations or liabilities and whether it might at some stage become legally enforceable.
These concordats have no status whatever. We are surprised that, although they will deal with major matters, they will normally be signed by a senior official. Only if they are politically sensitive will they be signed by Ministers and Assembly Secretaries. Thus, they will not be regarded as sufficiently important for a Minister to be involved in their negotiation and signing, but will be signed by officials within Departments.
We need to ask a number of fundamental questions about the concordats. First, what status will they have? I hope that the Secretary of State will give us an answer for the first time. Are they like Executive agreements in the United States, which are deliberate ways of bypassing the legislature, and thus matters of considerable constitutional interest and challenge in the United States? If they are, we should be told. Secondly, will they found actions for judicial review? Has the Secretary of State taken advice on whether he is correct in saying that they are not intended to create or impose duties and liabilities? Is he secure in his expectation that that will not happen?
Who will decide who signs the concordats? What are the criteria for deciding whether they will be signed by a Minister or an official? That may appear a semantic question, but it is not. We know that Ministers come and go, and that Governments come and go, but that officials, by their nature, tend to stay. We need to know whether a concordat signed by a Minister will end with the departure of that Minister, and whether a concordat signed by a Minister on behalf of a Government will end with the departure of that Government. It seems that a concordat signed by an official might last, because the officials will still be there, and the interests in which they signed will remain. That will create not just one category of concordat, but a series of categories.

Mr. Letwin: Has not an early example of what might be described as a concordat in British history come to have considerable significance over time, although it is rather different from some of the examples that my right hon. Friend is describing? I refer to magna carta.

Mr. Ancram: I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the subject of that particular concordat, although I think that I could give him examples of some rather more modern and ecclesiastical concordats. At least we knew the basis of those concordats, and the way in which they could ultimately be enforced in constitutional terms. What we have here are documents—I call them documents, but I do not even know whether they will be documents. In any event, they will be constitutional eccentricities which, at present, have no status, and no basis that we know of on which they can be enforced.
Are the concordats unilaterally breachable? If one side decides that a concordat is no longer a concordat, will that be the end of the matter? If so, is any remedy available to the other side? Will there be financial implications? I understand that the concordats could well be used to decide matters such as the resourcing of the assembly under clause 80 or, indeed, the workings of the Barnett formula. If they have financial implications, will they be open to inspection by the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons—and, if so, on what basis, if they are not born of the House of Commons?
Let us come to the nub of the issue. How can someone who is not a representative of the United Kingdom be delegated, on the basis of an informal agreement, as a representative of the United Kingdom in the Council of Ministers? We are told that that will be one of the purposes of the concordats. How can that be done on the basis of, if necessary, no more than the signature of an official?
Will there be two types of concordat? Will there be concordats that are essentially between officials and, therefore, theoretically, under the terms of the Bill, between members of the same civil service, and concordats which, being between separate Administrations, constitute a very different animal? That, too, will arise in relation to Europe. I understand that concordats will be drawn up between two Administrations in order to allow one to be represented on the delegation of the other, which will be based on the advice of civil servants common to both—civil servants who, I believe, will move between their offices in Cardiff and the Cabinet Office in London in order to formulate the policy that will be taken to the Council of Ministers.
A series of strange, sinister beings called concordats are being introduced— [Horn. MEMBERS: "Sinister?"] Hon. Members may smile, but it takes only one mouse to begin to chew away the rope that holds a building together. I see the beginnings of a deliberate attempt to bypass the House of Commons increasingly. We are starting with a few small concordats; five years later, we shall find that more and more is being done by concordat.
In the absence of answers, there is only one way in which the House can continue to control what is happening here: requiring all concordats to being brought to both Houses in draft form for approval. If that is done, we shall have a chance of protecting the interests of the House.

Mr. Rowlands: New clause 9, which is grouped with the right hon. Gentleman's new clause, would have the same effect, so I share the right hon. Gentleman's objective. However, I intend to employ a different argument because I thought that he rather over-egged his argument.
To return to my Bagehot, two buckles will link the assembly to Whitehall and Westminster. One is the Secretary of State and the other is the concordats. Those are the two instruments which will be used to achieve a relationship. They will deal with—if I can borrow a phrase from a different situation—the three areas of cohabitation that will have to be worked out.
9.15 pm
I am referring to the cohabitation between the Secretary of State and the assembly; the cohabitation between the


Secretary of State and Whitehall and the powers that he might have; and the cohabitation between the assembly and Whitehall. The concordats deal mainly with the third category of cohabitation—the relationship between assembly officials and Whitehall officials.
If the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) had bothered to read column 745 of Hansard on 2 March, he would have seen that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spelled out rather well the reason why we have to have concordats. He described a series of relationships between Welsh Office officials and Whitehall officials on a host of issues. Those officials regularly meet in a working relationship within a common political structure.
I was rather surprised that my right hon. Friend described the relationship as harmonious. If it is, it has changed a great deal since my time in office 20 years ago, when there was a great deal of tension. Quite often, Whitehall would either try to pull a fast one or simply ignore the Welsh Office. I gather that everything is now sweetness, light and harmony, although I find it a little difficult to believe.
My right hon. Friend rightly pointed out that there is a meaningful basis to the relationship—that the officials work in a common political administrative-executive structure. When Welsh Office officials go to Whitehall, they work under the same rules, with the same common purpose, and bound by the same set of relationships. Therefore, many of the points made by the right hon. Member for Devizes were off target.
The fundamental issue is not that there is something sinister about the relationship or that we do not need concordats. I understand why we need them—to establish the sort of relationships that exist now and which were well described by my right hon. Friend on 2 March. The problem is that we are in a wholly different political environment with different sets of loyalties. The officials coming to Whitehall from the Welsh Office or the assembly will not have a common political administrative-executive allegiance; they will be separate people with separate relationships and separate loyalties—not to a Minister who is part of the collective system of Westminster, Whitehall and Cabinet, but to the First Secretary and other Secretaries who will have different priorities and different political instincts.

Mr. Letwin: In theory, a civil servant could be on both ends of a concordat, acting in his two capacities. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that civil servant acting for two bodies which could have a contractual or legal relationship?

Mr. Rowlands: It is not a legal relationship at present; it is an administrative-executive arrangement between two sets of officials, but within a common system. I was saying that one of the questions that we need to ask is what happens when we break that up and the officials turn up in Whitehall from the assembly, with different political masters, different priorities and different remits.
I tried to read the document that, according to my right hon. Friend on 2 March,
could not be classified as a ripping good yarn, but … is worth reading" — [Official Report, 2 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 745.]

The right hon. Member for Devizes quoted from it earlier—but I did not find that it answered the one basic question that I would like answered.

Mr. Grieve: rose

Mr. Rowlands: Let me make my point first. The hon. Gentleman can intervene later.
The best way to get through all the constitutional theorising is to imagine a situation, to have a case study—or perhaps a scenario; that word would please the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). Let us imagine a scenario in which assembly officials turn up at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to discuss one of the sensitive issues concerning animal welfare, meat on the bone or something similar.
At the moment, such subjects may be all hush-hush, with confidential discussions taking place within MAFF about what it intends to do about an issue of considerable difficulty—meat hygiene, for example. Yet when the assembly officials turn up at the meeting, they may find that the thinking within MAFF is political dynamite for Welsh hillside farmers.
What do the officials do? At present, they would report back to their Ministers, and those Ministers would meet. That would all take place within a common system. What would a concordat say about such a situation? Having been up to Whitehall, the assembly officials will go back to base and report.
The first question is: to whom will they report? Do they say to the First Secretary, "We have to tell you that what we heard in the MAFF discussions is political dynamite"? What is the status of that information? How is to be transmitted to the assembly as a whole, or to the subject Committee dealing with the issue?
That is a central question about how well the buckle, or hyphen, representing the concord linking the two will be tested. I have not found out from anything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, delivered to the Library or explained to us in any shape or form, how we would deal with such a situation.
My scenario is not fanciful. Such things happened in my day, and I am sure they are happening now. Priorities, opinions, emphasis in policy and decision making—at operational level as well as at the grand strategic level—reveal lots of potential tensions between the needs and priorities of the assembly and its officials, and those of Whitehall and its Ministers.
Of course, the Secretary of State for Wales will have to play a vital part in bridging the gap. Sadly, I share with the right hon. Member for Devizes the idea that there are two things about which we know little more than we did at the beginning of our debates. The first is the meaningful content of the concordats dealing with such issues.
Secondly, the shadowiest figure in the Bill is the Secretary of State for Wales after devolution— [Laughter.] I mean a Secretary of State, not necessarily the present Secretary of State. The last thing that I would describe my right hon. Friend as is a shadow.

Mr. Jenkin: He is a sunny chap.

Mr. Rowlands: He may cast a shadow over some of us occasionally.
What I have described are two vital elements, which even after all this time we have not managed to flush out. Our new clause, like that of the right hon. Member for Devizes, says that, if we are to make devolution work, we at Westminster must have a profound interest in ensuring that the two hyphens, or buckles, hold, and can sustain the pressure.
I hope that, even if my right hon. Friend does not concede on our new clauses, he will come up with something more in the way of a substantive view. Before the Bill passes through both Houses of Parliament, we should have a better understanding of how concordats will work in the situations that I have described.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: New clauses 10 and 11 are about the publication of concordats and amendments to them. I listened with great care to the case advanced by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and to that put forward by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
I shall give another reason why we think greater thought should be given to the way in which the concordats are to operate. I listened with care to the scenario postulated by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney about Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials and beef on the bone, but I should have thought that the Welsh assembly could decide differently. I say that because such a measure would have to be introduced through secondary legislation. The regulation banning beef on the bone was, I understand, introduced by statutory instrument. It would have been possible for the Welsh assembly not to introduce it.

Mr. Rowlands: One of the great unanswered questions, which I raised earlier, is to what extent MAFF functions with regard to beef on the bone will be devolved to a Welsh assembly and, if not, what relationship the Secretary of State will have with Whitehall and the assembly on that matter. I am by no means clear whether the Bill and secondary legislation allow what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Jones: That is my reading of the Bill. If it is not correct, I fail to understand what the assembly's powers in secondary legislation will be. The Secretary of State might wish to settle the argument.
A scenario or case study is the best way in which to test the Government's position on concordats. I want to examine the Secretary of State's written answer of 27 February to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on the common provisions in concordats. The right hon. Member for Devizes mentioned it in the context of arrangements for liaison on EU and international matters.
In cases such as this, there will have to be a concordat not only between the Welsh assembly and a Whitehall Department, but between the Welsh assembly and two Whitehall Departments. That is important. For example, in regard to the EU, for the relationship to work, there would have to be a concordat between the Welsh assembly and the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office.
Negotiations on the future of structural funds would fall within the purview of the DTI. Currently, the DTI is the lead Department in such matters. It is the common

position put forward by the DTI in the Council of Ministers that carries the day. The Welsh Office has an opportunity to put forward its case, but in the Council of Ministers the vote is delivered by the President of the Board of Trade or another DTI Minister.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman talks about a concordat in relation to representation in Europe. He keeps on talking about a concordat between the assembly and one or two Whitehall Departments, but there is nothing to suggest that the assembly will have any more say than the House. The concordat will be drawn up between either officials or the First Secretary and, presumably, the Minister in the Department. My argument is that there is no democratic control or accountability. That is what I am trying to make clear, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support me in that.

Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has already said that. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State would tell us in what circumstances concordats would be signed between officials and between politicians. For example, the reply to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West says that there will be circumstances in which they will be signed by Ministers and Assembly Secretaries. It would be helpful for us to know what those circumstances might be.

Mr. Letwin: I wonder why the hon. Gentleman thinks it would be helpful if the Secretary of State told us about his speculations on the matter. That has nothing to do with the Bill. His speculations are merely speculations like those of a person in a pub.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not having a conversation with the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones); he is speaking to the Chair.

Mr. Jones: I do not follow the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). The written answer specifies that certain concordats will be signed between officials and certain concordats will be signed between Ministers and the assembly. The point being made is that that need not happen, but circumstances are being envisaged�žalthough they are not legally binding.

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: No. I need to make some progress.
Will there be a concordat on European matters between the Department of Trade and Industry and the assembly on issues such as structural funds, but a concordat between the Foreign Office and the assembly on representation of the assembly in the UKREP? Let us say for the sake of argument that a civil servant from the assembly is seconded to the permanent representation in Brussels. That is a function decided by the Foreign Office. Would there need to be a separate concordat on that arrangement? These are matters that need to be properly clarified.
I did not like the use of the word "sinister" by the right hon. Member for Devizes because it is provided that the details of concordats should be published. The difficulty


as I see it is that in the vast majority of cases there is no opportunity for anyone other than officials to decide the contents of the concordat.
Let us assume that there is a concordat between an assembly official and a DTI official about the relationship between the assembly and the Council of Ministers. How will the assembly make it clear that it wishes to have better representation in Europe if the officials have denied that in the official concordat? At what stage would, say, the First Secretary of the assembly be able to discuss with a Minister in the DTI the extent of that concordat? Who would be in a position to amend the concordat if the relationship was obviously not working?
That is one reason why we believe that there should be some way in which amendments to the concordat can be discussed in the assembly. If a concordat signed between officials obviously is not working�žfor example, the discussion of European matters�žand an amendment is proposed, it is vital that the assembly's voice is heard before the amendment is finally agreed.
I do not always share the Secretary of State's confidence about the future relationship between the assembly and Whitehall. I readily agree�žhe has often made the point-that the relationship is good at present. It is founded on mutual trust. I do not think that that will always be the case. I shall give the Secretary of State an example.
Let us assumethat during the right hon. Gentleman's term of office a concordat is signed on sensitive European matters. Let us assume that, two general elections down the line, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) becomes President of the Board of Trade in a Conservative Government. Let us assume that he wants to tear up the concordat, as he wanted to do when he was Secretary of State for Wales. Let us be blunt about it; he did not want Wales to have any relationship with the European Union. He wanted all the negotiations to be handled here in Westminster. He did not want Wales to have any influence in Europe. If he tears up the concordat, what happens?
The Secretary of State needs to reassure those of us who generally support the move towards better relationships between Departments about what would happen in that event. We need to know that there would be some system to enable the assembly to continue with the arrangements that had been in place under a previous Government.

Mr. Öpik: New clause 11 would authorise the assembly to confirm or reject a decision on a concordat made on its behalf. To make the relationship balanced, surely this House should have the same authority. I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's justification for suggesting that the assembly should have a greater power of scrutiny than the House.

Mr. Jones: I am not here to make that case�žbut the right hon. Member for Devizes has. He made a strong case for Westminster having the opportunity to consider the contents of the concordat, but he failed to respond to the argument that the assembly should have a similar power. Taken together, the new clauses complete the jigsaw.
The difficulty is that, because the concordats have not been drawn up yet, we are in the dark. I am sure that the Secretary of State is now aware, if he was not before, that the situation needs to be clarified. We need to be satisfied that the assembly will have real clout in its important relationships, such as that with the European Union.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to give the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) the reassurance that he seeks. I too read the paper that my right hon. Friend kindly and rightly placed in the Library. I do not want to seem churlish, but it does not reassure me completely.
I feel some sympathy for the person who wrote the paper because he did not know what was in the draftsman's mind�žand it is always difficult to draft something when it is not clear in one's own mind. I understand his problems. At least the paper begins by saying that, basically, the aim of the concordats is
to preserve the good working relationships which currently exist
between the Welsh Office and other Government Departments. Throughout its three pages, the hope is constantly expressed�žexplicitly or implicitly�žthat those good working relationships will continue.
Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) pointed out, we are talking about a different situation�ža different form of cohabitation. The good working relationships that now apparently exist between the Welsh Office and other Whitehall Departments need not necessarily exist between Whitehall Departments and a completely different animal�žthe National Assembly for Wales�žfor the simple reason that the assembly will not be a Whitehall Department.
In the main, Whitehall Departments have to live together. They may fight and quarrel but, at the end of the day, they have to reach an agreement, not necessarily because they want to but because they live in the same little pond and the same little village. That is not the case with the National Assembly for Wales; it will be from outside, from the next block.
The document has all the hallmarks of a demandeur, if I can use a French word.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: indicated assent.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend, who is an expert in that language�žas we heard earlier today�žsays that I am right. It is the kind of word that one hears in the Council of Ministers. To be accused of being a demandeur is a bad thing, and one does not get what one demands. The problem is that the National Assembly for Wales will be a demandeur, outside the magic circle but wanting to come in, perhaps wanting to be the chairman of the euro X committee. It will be told by those dreadful French that it cannot, because it not part of the whole magical set-up.
Right through the paper runs the demand, "Please, we want the same good working relationships." We are told that the concordat does not�žthe word "not" appears in strong typeface�žcreate legal obligations. I suppose it does not, but I do not know.

Mr. Paterson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who is an eminent lawyer, his opinion of the idea that


the concordats have no legal standing? If something goes wrong, surely the aggrieved person�žperhaps the farmer in one case or the industrialist in another�žwill go to law and the concordat will very rapidly acquire legal standing.

Mr. Davies: I am not an eminent lawyer, but apparently eminent lawyers do not give free legal advice�žI shall not mention the Lord Chancellor in this context.

Mr. Letwin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, from the face of the Bill and without his being any kind of lawyer, that it is evident that the subject of a concordat could become a devolution issue and that that could lead to its being adjudicated by the Judicial Committee?

Mr. Davies: Yes, indeed�žthey could all end up in the Judicial Committee, and lawyers, who love judicial review and have made a lot of money out of it over the past 20 years, will press the case and learned articles will be written saying that of course the matter is within the ambit of judicial review. That is the nature of things.
We are told that there should be
co-ordination … to take account of the programmes for implementing new legislationߞ
in other words, another cry from the national assembly: "Please, please, Whitehall, let us in on implementing new legislation. Don't freeze us out, because we need to be there." Whether Whitehall will listen is another matter: if it does not need to listen or is not forced to listen, it will not listen. Again there is the real problem of how the assembly gets into the legislative process of Whitehall, with which I foresee great difficulties.
We are told that the concordats should deal with
shared interests in matters such as EU business.
We have heard that time and again and we heard it tonight from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. The problem as I understand it is that the lead Department in EU business, be it the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, being a UK Department, will also be the Department for England.
We shall have a curious situation: the President of the Board of Trade will be not only the lead Minister for the United Kingdom, but the Minister for England. The same is true of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who will be the lead Minister for the United Kingdom and the Minister of Agriculture for England. There will be no Minister for Wales, except for the First Secretary of the National Assembly, so there is bound to be a conflict of interest. That will create difficulties, so I can understand the need for some sort of concordat; but how we are to go about it, I do not know.
We are told that, despite having the concordat and the good working relationship, the concordat must
avoid constraining the Assembly or Whitehall Departments in their actions within their fields of competence.
We need a concordat, but it must not constrain anyone.

Mr. Grieve: Reading new clause 9, which stands in the right hon. Gentleman's name among others, it appears to me that it is a one-way street, because once the Order in

Council has been made at Westminster, Buckingham palace, or wherever, the assembly will not be able to get out of it.

Mr. Davies: To some extent, I am arguing that it is a one-way street. On the one hand there will be a working relationship but, on the other and according to the document, that relationship
must not constrain … Whitehall Departments",
and, of course, Whitehall will not want to be constrained. Why should it be constrained by the little kid in the next street? Why should Whitehall be constrained by the Welsh assembly? It will have no interest in being constrained by the Welsh assembly; it will carry on in its own way.
We are moving back halfway to the position that existed before there was a Welsh Office. That is a consequence of devolution and I do not criticise it. When there was no Welsh Office, Welsh matters were dealt with in Whitehall Departments. Then, because of the pressure, the Welsh Office was set up. Gradually it built up, and now�ževentually�žit has a good working relationship with other Whitehall Departments. At the start, it was difficult.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: That is an interesting issue. I became a civil servant at the Welsh Office within 12 or 14 months of its being set up. Slightly older civil servants have described to me the change in relationships that took place on the setting up of the Welsh Office as a separate Cabinet Department; that change in relationships was not unlike what is being talked of now. There was a step change in the relationship and the demandeur relationship that my right hon. Friend is describing was a feature of what happened to the Welsh Office when it became a separate Department of state.
I remember that, when we were trying to demand that the Royal Mint be moved to Llantrisant, that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre be moved to Swansea and that a section of the Department of Trade and Industry be moved to Cardiff, all at the same time, we could not work out whether it was a good or a bad thing to aim at all three. In the end, we aimed at all three and got all three. That was an example of a new Department of State being able to do a great deal of demanding all at the same time.

Mr. Davies: Yes, indeed. It became, and remains, a mature Department of State. In so doing, it ceased to be a demandeur and became part of the set-up.
However, now we are moving backwards again. We are dismantling that situation and must almost start again�žor at least move halfway back to where we were before 1964, when the Welsh Office was set up. Again we find the Welsh assembly seeking somehow to obtain an agreement to constrain the other side. Whitehall Departments do not need the Welsh assembly.
The Treasury will consider that, once it has given the Welsh assembly £7 billion to spend on health and education, for example, that is the end of the matter: Whitehall will have performed its obligation. Whitehall will ask, "What on earth is all this about legislation? The Welsh are being given £7 billion and they should be grateful. Go away, spend it and come back next year, when they will probably get another £7 billion plus whatever the rate of inflation might be. Why should they return to Whitehall, demanding this, demanding that?"
According to the hon. Member for Ynys Mon, two agreements are being demanded with one Department. That is unrealistic and reveals a lack of understanding of the realpolitik in government and the bargaining that takes place.
We are told, in paragraph 5 of the document:
The aim on both sides should … be 'no surprises'.
There should be no surprises on the part of the National Assembly for Wales—we would not wish to be the subject of surprises from Big Brother in Whitehall—but why should Big Brother in Whitehall worry about surprises coming from the little National Assembly for Wales? The aim of "no surprises" is to put constraints on Whitehall Departments, so that they do not surprise us.
We are not equal partners in the agreement, whether or not there is an intention to create legal relations. We are not equal parties to the contract, and that is the real problem. Whitehall will not be malicious; Whitehall will not need to look at us, because Whitehall will have paid us the money, having written the cheque, thinking, "Those Welsh—they can go off and do their own thing." That is the worry and the reality.
I conclude with this. We are told that there is to be consultation with United Kingdom-Great Britain public bodies. We are told that there will be consultation about
the exercise of Ministerial functions relating to such bodies, such as giving directions or approving corporate plans".
There will need to be separate memorandums of understanding for each body. Which bodies are they? Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give us a list of those bodies.
There may be concordats on
operational agency arrangements"—
we are almost back to local government again—
whereby matters are administered by the UK Government on behalf of the National Assembly on an agency basis or vice versa.
What agency matters will be imposed or agreed by the National Assembly on behalf of UK Government or vice versa? May we have a few examples?
There may be a concordat on
arrangements for resolving disagreements about any matters related to the concordat"—
another grand concordat to judge the little concordats. Is that realistic? It would take a long time to draft.
We are told that there will be an official committee, with a rotating chairman—going round and round—to report at intervals to Assembly Secretaries and Ministers on the operation of the concordat. Will there be a grand weekend conference with the rotating chairman? "How is it working now? How does the assembly like these concordats?" That is entirely and completely unrealistic within the reality and the brutishness, sometimes, of government. We are told that there will be signing at senior official level, and only occasionally at ministerial level.
I do not criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Obviously he has done his best with the document. I am sure that no better could have been done with it, because the relationship is unstable, unequal and unrealistic. Yes, we have devolution. Yes, most people in Wales have wanted it. However, there are consequences.
As lawyers would say, there are burdens and benefits. Being frozen out of Whitehall or being in a halfway house is one of the burdens. I hope that we can find some benefits.

Mr. Ron Davies: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) for his comments. I am grateful that he took the trouble to read the report of our debate on 2 March. It was a full and substantive debate, and I remind the House that many of the questions that we have been debating today were raised on 2 March, and that full answers were given. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging that. I shall reply to the points that have been made on the three clauses, and then I shall deal with any other questions that are raised.
Each of the new clauses refers to concordats, and seeks to put them on a statutory footing. Certain procedural requirements are set out that would apply to them. We have made it clear consistently since the White Paper was published, and in a statement of principles that I published on 27 February, that it will be important to have clear mutual understandings about the working relationship between the assembly and Government Departments. We have been equally clear that it would be unhelpful to turn these into law. That is why the concordats we propose are not intended to be statutory.
Our aim is to preserve the good working relationships that my Department currently has with other Whitehall Departments, so that the business of governance in Wales continues to be conducted smoothly and efficiently. Concordats will set the framework for administrative co-operation and exchange of information dealing with the current processes and the main features of good working relationships.
Concordats already exist between the Welsh Office and local government. These are not legal agreements or agreements that are subject to the affirmative procedure. They are agreements entered into between myself as Secretary of State and the 22 unitary authorities in Wales. They set out the basis on which we consult, respect one another and ensure that the good business of government in Wales is conducted. That is an example of how concordats will work in practice. Suggestions that practical working arrangements should have a legal basis or be subject to procedures of the House are fanciful.

Mr. Ancram: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to put his points at length, and I want to reply to them. If there is sufficient time, he can come back at me.
It might assist the House if I give some specific examples of matters that I expect to be covered in concordats. The ground to be covered in each document will need to be settled by the assembly and the Government Department concerned. To answer the question of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), the documents will be signed by the assembly. If a concordat related to political matters, an Assembly Secretary would sign it, together with a Minister. In other circumstances, it may be that, if the concordat related to working arrangements between civil servants, it would be signed at that level.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn is correct in assuming that there will be different concordats relating, to take the example he gave, to the Department of Trade and Industry on the one hand and the Foreign Office on the other. Those concordats will have to be mutually compatible. However, different concordats will be entered into with the objective of ensuring that matters such as Welsh representations to the European Union are conducted in a way that minimises friction and ensures that the voice of Wales is heard properly. That is an example of how the concordats will work.
I understand that some hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for Devizes, can think only in terms of conflict. It just goes to show what an outdated mindset the Conservative party has. We are entering an era of new politics, when it is possible to co-operate and put aside party political differences in the interests of better government. When the right hon. Gentleman understands that, he will be in a better position to argue his case at the Dispatch Box.
Concordats would cover consultation arrangements in relation to proposals for legislation and Executive action, such as the exchange of information, including policy papers, analysis and statistics; and joint working, including participation in working groups, official committees and so on. They are two-way processes. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) raised the question of confidential information. When a party requires confidentiality, that will have to be written into the concordat and respected.
Concordats will need to address those issues in the context not only of domestic policy and legislation but of the European Union. The assembly's role in policy discussions, both in the United Kingdom and in Europe, on matters within its field of responsibility will therefore be a central feature of relevant concordats. In line with current arrangements, the concordats will provide for matters such as access to relevant papers, attendance at interdepartmental meetings, consultation with the assembly about the development of the United Kingdom negotiating line, and participation in United Kingdom delegations to Brussels. They are precisely the points that were raised during the debate.
New clause 10 would require concordats to be published within a week of having been agreed. The assembly's concordats will be published documents, but I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate for the legislation to specify the timing of publication. I informed the right hon. Gentleman in a written answer on 10 March that any draft concordats produced by my Department in preparation for the assembly will be published subject to the provisos mentioned in the Government's White Paper on freedom of information. I do not expect the drafts to be ready until well after the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament.
That underlines my point that concordats are practical documents that deal with working relationships rather than matters that need to feature on the face of legislation. The terms of concordats will be agreed between the assembly and Government Departments after the assembly has been elected. As new clause 5 suggests, there is no case for requiring these documents about working arrangements to be subject to prior approval by both Houses of Parliament.
New clause 9 suggests that it is necessary to have an order in council providing for the assembly and Government Departments to agree concordats between them. If the Government thought that the assembly needed any specific power to enter into concordats, we would have included that in the Bill. I am afraid that I cannot offer my hon. Friend any encouragement regarding new clause 9. New clause 11 would require all amendments to concordats to be agreed by a majority vote at a meeting of the assembly. That unnecessarily threatens the discretion of the assembly to decide how it wishes to approve them.
This afternoon, we have seen a synthetic exercise in indignation from the right hon. Member for Devizes. He realises that he can do little to prevent the passage of this legislation into law—he is simply looking for an excuse to call a Division.

Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State has succeeded in creating a fog of complete confusion about the nature of concordats. More ridiculous even than his other comments was his suggestion that he already has a concordat with local government in Wales. What sort of concordat did he have with the Cardiff county council regarding the siting of the assembly? He had no such concordat, because, for an agreement to exist, it must be based upon a common source of authority.
The description of a concordat says that it should set the ground rules. It states that there will be arrangements for resolving disagreements, but that they are not intended to be legally binding. When is an agreement an agreement? An agreement is not an agreement unless the parties have some recourse to an independent arbiter who will decide what that agreement should be.

Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: No, I am sorry, I only have one minute.
Is the assembly or the assembly Executive a legal personality separate from the Westminster Parliament and the Whitehall Government? Even though they have a common civil service, they will be separate legal personalities, because they will have separate masters and separate agendas. The agreements, which will be published, will be the subject of disputes, and are bound to finish up in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They will be used as evidence of a contract between those two separate legal personalities, and will be the governing arrangements between two separate Administrations.
If the Secretary of State is confident that the agreements will not be legally enforceable, he should give the House that guarantee.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 309.

Division No. 231]
[10 pm

AYES


Amess, David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony


Arbuthnot, James
Bercow, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Beresford, Sir Paul






Blunt, Crispin
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Body, Sir Richard
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Boswell, Tim
Uoyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Loughton, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Luff, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Browning, Mrs Angela
MacKay, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Burns, Simon
McLoughlin, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Malins, Humfrey


Cash, William
Maples, John


Chope, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Clappison, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
May, Mrs Theresa


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Moss, Malcolm


Collins, Tim
Norman, Archie


Colvin, Michael
Page, Richard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Paice, James


Cran, James
Paterson, Owen


Curry, Rt Hon David
Pickles, Eric


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Prior, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
 Redwood, Rt Hon John


Dorreil, Rt Hon Stephen
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Evans, Nigel
Ruffley, David


Faber, David
St Aubyn, Nick


Fabricant, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fallon, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Flight, Howard
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Soames, Nicholas


Fox, Dr LJam
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fraser, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gibb, Nick
Spring, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Steen, Anthony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Streeter, Gary


Gray, James
Swayne, Desmond


Green, Damian
Syms, Robert


Greenway, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hammond, Philip
Townend, John


Hawkins, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Hayes, John
Trend, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Viggers, Peter


Horam, John
Walter, Robert


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wardle, Charles


Hunter, Andrew
Wells, Bowen


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Whittingdale, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Johnson Smith,
Willetts, David


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Key, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Yeo, Tim


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Lansley, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leigh, Edward
Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Nigel Waterson.


Letwin, Oliver


NOES


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Allan, Richard
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Allen, Graham
Bell, Martin (Tatton)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew F


Atherton, Ms Candy
Benton, Joe


Baker, Norman
Bermingham, Gerald


Barnes, Harry
Berry, Roger


Barron, Kevin
Best, Harold


Battle, John
Blackman, Liz





Blears, Ms Hazel
Flynn, Paul


Blizzard, Bob
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Borrow, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foulkes, George


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Galloway, George


Browne, Desmond
Gapes, Mike


Buck, Ms Karen
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burden, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burgon, Colin
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burnett, John
Godman, Norman A


Caborn, Richard
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grant, Bernie


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Canavan, Dennis
Grocott, Bruce


Caplin, Ivor
Grogan, John


Casale, Roger
Gunnell, John


Caton, Martin
Hain, Peter


Chaytor, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hanson, David


Church, Ms Judith
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clapham, Michael
Harris, Dr Evan


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Dr Lynda
Healey, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coleman, Iain
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Colman, Tony
Hoey, Kate


Connarty, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cooper, Yvette
Hope, Phil


Corbett, Robin
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Humble, Mrs Joan


(Copeland)
Hurst, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hutton, John


Dalyell, Tam
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darvill, Keith
Jamieson, David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W  Hessle)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Davidson, Ian
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Ms Jenny


Dean, Mrs Janet
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Denham, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Doran, Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keetch, Paul


Drown, Ms Julia
Kemp, Fraser


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kidney, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby  Kenilworth)


Edwards, Huw
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kirkwood, Archy


Ennis, Jeff
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fatchett, Derek
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fearn, Ronnie
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Laxton, Bob


Fisher, Mark
Lepper, David






Levitt, Tom
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sanders, Adrian


Livsey, Richard
Sedgemore, Brian


Uwyd, Elfyn
Shaw, Jonathan


Lock, David
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCabe, Steve
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Skinner, Dennis


McDonnell, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McFall, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Miss Geraldine


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
(Morecambe  Lunesdale)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Soley, Clive


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Martlew, Eric
Spellar, John


Maxton, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Meale, Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Michael, Alun
Stevenson, George


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Milburn, Alan
Stott, Roger


Miller, Andrew
Stringer, Graham


Mitchell, Austin
Stunell, Andrew


Moffatt, Laura
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
(Dewsbury)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mudie, George
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Tipping, Paddy


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Todd, Mark


Norris, Dan
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Trickett, Jon


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Truswell, Paul


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Öpik, Lembit
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Tyler, Paul


Palmer, Dr Nick
Walley, Ms Joan


Pearson, Ian
Wareing, Robert N


Pike, Peter L
Watts, David


Plaskitt, James
Webb, Steve


Pollard, Kerry
White, Brian


Pope, Greg
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Primarolo, Dawn
(Swansea W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Purchase, Ken
Willis, Phil


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wills, Michael '


Quinn, Lawrie
Wilson, Brian


Radice, Giles
Winnick, David


Rammell, Bill
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Raynsford, Nick
Wise, Audrey


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wray, James


Rendel, David
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wyatt, Derek


Rowlands, Ted



Roy, Frank
Tellers for the Noes:


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

TIME OF ORDINARY ELECTIONS.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 2, line 36, at end insert—
'()No order shall be made under subsection (3), and no order in connection with an ordinary election subsequent to the first shall be made under subsection (4), unless the Secretary of State has consulted the Assembly.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 183, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, leave out from 'have' to end of line 2 on page 3 and insert
'one vote (referred to in this Act as a constituency vote).
(2) The constituency vote is to be given for a candidate to be the Assembly member for the Assembly constituency.
(3) There shall also be calculated an additional member vote for each registered political party which has submitted a list of candidates to be Assembly members for the Assembly electoral region in which the Assembly constituency is included.
(3A) The additional member vote for each party shall be the same as the constituency vote of the candidate of the party in that constituency.'.
No. 211, in page 2, line 43, after 'tar, insert
'a candidate who is a member of'.
Government amendment No. 75.
No. 184, in clause 5, page 3, leave out lines 24 and 25.
No. 185, in page 3, leave out lines 32 to 43.
No. 186, in clause 6, page 4, line 3, leave out 'electoral region' and insert 'additional member'.
No. 187, in page 4, leave out lines 10 to 13.
No. 188, in page 4, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert
'for a registered political party under subsection (1)(b) is referred to in this Act as the electoral region figure for that party.'.
No. 189, in clause 7, page 4, line 20" leave out 'or individual candidate'.
No. 190, in page 4, line 22" leave out 'or individual candidate'.
No. 191, in page 4, leave out lines 33 and 34.
No. 212, in page 4, line 36, leave out
'in which they appear on the list'
and insert
'of the number of votes cast for the candidates'.
No. 192, in page 4, line 44, leave out 'or individual candidates'.
No. 193, in page 5, leave out lines 4 to 8 and insert
'a recalculation has been carried out under section 6(1)(b) after adding one to the number of votes given for each party with that electoral region figure.'.
No. 194, in page 5, line 10, leave out 'or individual candidates'.
No. 195, in clause 8, page 5, line 17, leave out from 'vacancy' to end of line 20 and insert
', the Assembly member for the Assembly constituency shall be returned under the simple majority system.


(3A) No election held under this section shall call into question the election of Assembly members for the Assembly electoral region in which the Assembly constituency is included at the last ordinary election.'.
No. 196, in clause 9, page 5, line 39, leave out from '(2)' to second 'the' in line 40.
No. 216, in page 5, line 44, leave out 'that list' and insert
'the list from which the Assembly member whose seat is vacant was returned.'.
No. 213, in page 6, line 6, leave out from 'them' to end and insert
'received the greater number of votes.'.
No. 197, in page 6, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert
'there is no—one who satisfies the conditions in subsection (3),'.
No. 24, in clause 11, page 7, line 11, leave out
'any provision of, or made under,'
and insert 'the provisions of'.
No. 23, in page 7, line 12, leave out from 'Acts' to end of line 14.
No. 25, in page 7, line 22, at end insert
'and
(d) substitute for any provision requiring the payment of a deposit a provision requiring the signatures of a specified number of electors.'.
Government amendment No. 153.

Mr. Griffiths: In Committee, we undertook to consider further whether the order-making powers in clause 3 to adjust dates of elections might be exercised by the assembly rather than the Secretary of State.
Generally speaking, the Government's approach is for the House and those directly accountable to it to be responsible for electoral matters relating to the assembly. We recognise, however, that Members of the Assembly would have a legitimate self-interest in decisions concerning the dates of elections. They would be well placed to advise the Secretary of State in taking his decision. Accordingly, we propose that the order-making powers should be properly exercised by the Secretary of State in consultation with the assembly. Amendment No. 74 would provide for that eventuality.
Amendment No. 75 responds to the issues raised in Committee. Hon. Members will recall the concerns expressed that the Bill as drafted might prevent parties from submitting a party list comprising one name only. It was certainly not the intention to rule out single-name lists. As promised, the Government have considered the matter, and I am pleased to offer the House the clarification that amendment No. 75 provides. It confirms that parties will be able to submit a single name for an electoral region.
Amendment No. 153 is a technical amendment. Under clause 11(5), the return of an Assembly Member at an election may not be questioned except under the provisions of part III of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as applied by or incorporated in order made by the Secretary of State. Part III of the 1983 Act provides for an election to be challenged by means of an election petition. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that in the context of the clause and to establish consistency

with clause 15(3)(a), which makes what would otherwise be the first reference to an election petition but does not cite the legislative source.

Mr. Ancram: I should like to speak to amendment No. 183 and the other amendments standing in my name and the names of my hon. Friends that are effectively consequent upon the amendment. I do so in the light of points that were raised earlier, to which I must briefly return because they set out the reasons for our concern in tabling the amendments.
The present system of voting as proposed in clause 4 allows for two votes that will be cast separately. The first vote will be for direct elections to constituencies, in the same way as hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies are elected at the moment and on the same constituency boundaries. The second will be for constituency parties or individuals that will be aggregated over a given region yet to be determined, although it is likely to be the European constituencies of the past. That total aggregated vote will then be dealt with under what is known as the d'Hondt system. Success in the direct elections is taken into account in dividing the aggregate vote before the ranking of that vote takes place to decide how many seats are won on the regional list. It is even more complicated than that, but I will not go through it all now.
The real problem arises because there is a distinct possibility of abusing the system, which is designed to create proportionality, in a way that defeats proportionality. That is done by what has become known as split-ticket voting. That is nothing new; it happens in Germany, where there is an additional member system. The difference here is that it is possible, under the provisions of the Bill, to register parties which are essentially identical but pass under different names—Plaid Cymru for the direct elections and the National Party for Wales for the regional list; the Labour party for the direct elections and the Independent Labour party for the regional list; the Conservatives and the Unionists, and so on.
If a split-ticket vote of this kind is achieved, the effect of the d'Hondt divider is totally avoided. Thereby representation of a party can be substantially increased on the regional list. The figures I gave the last time we debated the subject showed that, on I May last year, had there been a Labour party for the direct elections and an Independent Labour party for the regional list, the difference would have been between 64 seats under the system as it should work, and 91 seats under the system if it were distorted in this way. That clearly shows that the purpose of what has been sold by the Government as a proportional system could be completely defeated.
We have been looking for ways to prevent that. I originally tabled an amendment that sought to ensure representation across the two lists. The Government asked me to withdraw it, and said that they would think about the matter further. I then asked whether we would be able to see the draft of the registration of political parties legislation, which we now expect to see after Easter. I had hoped to find there a solution that would prevent the registration of identical parties—parties which I have in the past called alter ego parties. The Minister said at the time that he would examine that legislation to see whether it would deal with those issues. Unfortunately—


we have already had an argument about this today—that legislation is not before us, so we cannot tell whether it will provide an answer.
All I have been able to get is the Government's submission to the Neill committee, attached to a written answer on 9 March, setting out in general terms what the Bill will contain. It takes us no further forward:
The Registration Bill will have two key purposes. These will be to give a formal legal status to 'registered' political parties and thus enable them to field lists of candidates for the proportional representation systems proposed for the elections to",
among others, the
National Assembly for Wales";
and secondly, to
prevent the use of misleading descriptions … In order to achieve these purposes, it is intended that the Bill should provide for compulsory registration
in certain circumstances, and the
voluntary registration of any other political parties".
There is no qualification or restriction—nothing to say that there will be any way of preventing alter ego parties or hence the manipulation of the system to which I have referred.
I reluctantly accept that this Bill will leave the House before we know whether the registration of parties Bill will deal with what is, on any view, an attempt to avoid the purposes behind this system. That is why we have tabled another amendment tonight. I realise that it has its shortcomings; I am sure that the Minister will tell me that it will get in the way of individuals standing for the regional list.
However, instead of giving two votes that could be exercised on a split-ticket basis, the amendment allows only one vote. That vote would be cast initially for the candidate in the direct election constituency, and thereafter it would be counted within a given region as the party vote. Thus the same votes will be used for the same purposes. A vote cast for Plaid Cymru in the direct elections will be counted as a Plaid Cymru vote in the regional lists, and could not be counted under any other nomenclature. The same would apply to a Labour or a Conservative vote. Unless we find a solution to that problem, we shall build into the system something that will discredit the assembly in its infancy and undermine its credibility in the long term.
On 2 March, the Minister referred to that practice by saying:
Such cynical manipulation of the system would be an affront to the electorate and would undermine the democratic credibility of the elected body."—[Official Report,  2 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 804.1]
Given those words, the Minister has a responsibility to find a solution to that problem. The simplest solution should be in the registration of political parties Bill. Whether it will be, we do not know.

Mr. Leigh: I am trying to follow my right hon. Friend's argument, but I do not understand the problem. I accept that proportional representation systems are complex, but I do not understand why someone cannot vote once, and why the votes cannot be aggregated between the parties. It seems such a fair and obvious solution that I cannot think why everybody does not accept it.

Mr. Ancram: That is precisely what my amendment sets out to do. I accept that the Government want

individual candidates on the regional lists, and will turn down the amendment because it prevents that from happening, for technical reasons. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is the simplest and quickest way to deal with the problem. In the absence of that solution, we shall need to look for an answer in the registration of political parties legislation. I regret that the draft legislation is not available to us today. It is wrong to ask us to consider such an important matter without all the available information, particularly as it must be available somewhere if the Bill is to be published in a week or two.
In the light of his comments about the unacceptability of potential abuse of that system, if the Minister will not accept my amendment, which I shall seek to press, I hope that he can find another way to proceed.

Mr. Livsey: Amendments Nos. 211, 212 and 213 seek to provide for open-list voting for the additional member part of the elections. Amendment No. 211 provides that the second vote of each elector will be for a candidate on a list. Amendment No. 212 changes the counting system so that candidates on a list are elected in the order of votes cast, not according to the order in which the party has placed them. Amendment No. 213 deals with vacancies in electoral region seats under the open-list system created by amendment No. 211. It provides that a vacant seat is allocated to the person on the list who receives the next highest number of votes.
Under the system that Liberal Democrats would adopt, candidates for electoral regions would be listed on the ballot paper in alphabetical order by party. Electors would use their votes to vote for a candidate on the list, as opposed to a party, as in the Bill.
The issue of open and closed lists was discussed extensively during the passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. As a compromise, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) tabled amendments to create open lists in which voters would have the option of voting for a party or for a candidate. Voters who voted for a party would be deemed to have accepted the order of candidates selected by the party. That would have given voters an opportunity to express a view on the party list—an opportunity that is lacking in the Bill.
The Home Secretary considered that option carefully, but decided at the last minute not to accept the amendments. He said that the system of providing a choice between a party and a candidate suffered from a fundamental and incurable weakness, in that voters' preferences for individual candidates were not necessarily translated into electoral success. He argued that that was because a significant proportion of voters vote for the party, and individual votes for candidates on the list were unlikely to change the order of candidates.
Amendments Nos 211 to 213 address that argument by giving voters a completely open list, with a real opportunity to elect the candidates whom they prefer. As part of the consultation process, during deliberations on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, research on the issue of open and closed lists was carried out. A poll of 1,130 people by Professor Patrick Dunleavy of the London school of economics concluded
it is likely that a clear majority of voters … would prefer to see an open list.
There are other examples, which I will not go into now; but the overwhelming evidence is that voters prefer open lists.


10.30 pm
Open lists allow voters to choose candidates from within parties, expressing preferences for men or women or for ethnic-minority candidates. The only possible argument against open lists is party management. As the poll evidence shows, voters do not like having candidates imposed on them. Open lists are not more likely to lead to fighting between candidates in the same party if they are controlled by a single agent for each party, who oversees a budget.
The voting system used for the first elections to the assembly must have the confidence of the Welsh people. The amendments would increase their confidence, and might encourage more participation in a fair and open electoral system.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The issues raised by amendments Nos 183, 184 and 191 to 196 are important, and I do not dismiss for a moment the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). We have given a great deal of thought to the matter and to the various solutions that have been suggested, but I am not convinced that there is an answer that can be provided for in electoral law. The various solutions that have been suggested are, in many ways, more undemocratic than the circumstances that they seek to address.
The solution presented by this group of amendments, for example, would undermine the democratic credentials of assembly elections in three ways. First, voters would be allowed only one vote—for the constituency candidate. If voters want to vote for the candidate of one party in the constituency, and for the list of another party in the electoral region, why should they not have that choice?

Mr. Leigh: Why should they want to do that?

Mr. Griffiths: The record shows that, in countries where there is an additional member system, voters can be quite sophisticated in voting for an outstanding individual who may or may not be a member of their party. Also, in voting for additional members, they may decide that, given the luck of the way in which the election may turn out, it would be just as well to vote for some members of a party in order to retain a reasonable balance in the politics of their country.

Mr. Ian Davidson: In many parts of my country, people vote for the most prominent anti-Conservative candidate under the first-past-the-post system in order to defeat the Conservatives, and then want to vote for the candidate of their choice in the list system. The system that is now being proposed would stop the people of Wales uniting to back the most popular anti-Conservative candidates in individual constituencies, which must surely be a bad development.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his Scottish contribution, which was full of wisdom.
We believe that smaller parties' main hope of winning seats in the assembly may be the party list vote in the electoral region. We in the new Labour party are now so inclusive that we want to give everyone—even the

Conservatives—a chance, by having an additional member system anyway. Such a system would enable smaller parties to maximise their potential for party list seats if they ran candidates in one electoral region, but it would not be helpful if they had to run candidates everywhere, as was proposed earlier.
Moreover, as the right hon. Member for Devizes pointed out, his system, as outlined in amendment No 183 et al, would prevent independents from being able to run in electoral regions.
There are questions to be asked about ticket voting, and we must ask them, but there is also a danger of overstating the likelihood of the potential for collusion being realised. I have already said that it would take a very sophisticated degree of cynicism within or among parties to attempt such a manipulation of the system.
I am sure that, if there were any attempts at such collusion, the vigilance of other political parties and the media would soon expose it. I do not think that exposure would reflect well on the guilty party with the electorate, and that in itself would be a real deterrent. It is in parties' own interests not to undermine the democratic integrity of the assembly by cynical manipulation.

Mr.Ancram: rose—

Mr. Griffiths: Just a moment. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the chance to speak shortly.
On behalf of the Labour party, I am prepared to say publicly and openly that my party will not try to deceive the electorate by entering into any such collusion. It would be easy for all the other parties in the House to make a similar commitment, which would kill the split ticket idea altogether.

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is sincere in his offer; whether he can deliver on it is another matter. I do not know how the Labour party is organised these days, so I do not know whether, when he talks about "my party", he is talking merely for the Labour party in Wales.
Indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) has just told us that that is precisely what he and his colleagues in Glasgow intend to organise between the Labour party and the Co-operative movement. So there are already signs that such activity is being planned in one part of the Labour party in the United Kingdom, even as we are being made a kind offer that it will not happen in another part of the Labour party in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister accept from me the thought that it is just that type of divided view within his party that causes me great unease on the subject?

Mr. Griffiths: I have made it clear what the position in Wales will be, and I am sure that we can think of ways of ensuring that such things do not happen, and electors are not given the wrong impression about what people really represent.

Mr. Livsey: May I assure the Minister that my party would not wish to abuse the system, either.

Mr. Griffiths: I am pleased to hear that.
Amendments Nos. 211 to 213, to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) spoke, were designed to give voters in the list system the opportunity of looking at a list with all the potential candidates on the ballot paper.
The voting procedure is new, and we want it to be as simple and straightforward as possible. Everybody will know exactly who is standing on each party list, and if people have a preference for one list as opposed to another, under our system they can vote for the party that offers the best list. Notices will be prominently displayed in polling stations, and parties will be able to circulate fully all their lists in each of the electoral regions. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendments.
As for amendments Nos. 24 and 23, I remind the House that the purpose of clause 11(3)(a) is to enable us to draw up orders relating to the procedure for assembly elections that are appropriate for elections under the additional member system.
We shall introduce an elections procedure order in the autumn, and we want to make it as elector-friendly as possible. Because of the additional member system, we want to be able to take into account more than the Representation of the People Act, and we shall ensure that the order will be subject to an affirmative resolution in each House of Parliament before it can come into force.

Mr. Ancram: Will the Minister explain to the electors in Wales how the d'Hondt divisor works?

Mr. Griffiths: A research paper in the Library explains that. As a former Member of the European Parliament, I am well aware of how that system works.
Amendment No. 25 is a departure from the practice of requiring candidates to be supported by deposits in favour of lists of voters backing potential candidates. I want to give hon. Members the opportunity to vote on the matters that concern them. We do not want to depart from the established practice of deposits. It is a useful discipline. If signatures had to be collected, they would have to be verified, and a decision would have to be made on what was a reasonable number. Returning officers would have to do all that at a time when they were busy enough.
I appreciate what Plaid Cymru is trying to do in broadening the scope for candidature, but the Government want to stick to some sort of a deposit. I promise that it is not likely to be onerous. Therefore, I hope that amendment No. 25 will be withdrawn.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

VOTING AT ORDINARY ELECTIONS

Amendment proposed: No. 183, in page 2, line 38, leave out from 'have' to end of line 2 on page 3 and insert
'one vote (referred to in this Act as a constituency vote).

The constituency vote is to be given for a candidate to be the Assembly member for the Assembly constituency.

There shall also be calculated an additional member vote for each registered political party which has submitted a list of

candidates to be Assembly members for the Assembly electoral region in which the Assembly constituency is included.

(3A) The additional member vote for each party shall be the same as the constituency vote of the candidate of the party in that constituency.' —[Mr. Ancram.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 272.

Division No. 232]
[10.41 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Key, Robert


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lansley, Andrew


Baldry, Tony
Leigh, Edward


Bercow, John
Letwin, Oliver


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Blunt, Crispin
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Body, Sir Richard
Loughton, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Luff, Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Malins, Humfrey


Burns, Simon
Mates, Michael


Butterfill, John
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cash, William
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Chope, Christopher
May, Mrs Theresa


Clappison, James
Moss, Malcolm


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Norman, Archie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Colvin, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Pickles, Eric


Cran, James
Prior, David


Curry, Rt Hon David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Robathan, Andrew


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Ruffley, David


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Evans, Nigel
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Faber, David
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fabricant, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Fallon, Michael
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Flight, Howard
Spicer, Sir Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Spring, Richard


Fox, Dr Liam
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fraser, Christopher
Steen, Anthony


Gibb, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Gill, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Syms, Robert


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gray, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Green, Damian
Townend, John


Greenway, John
Trend, Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Tyrie, Andrew


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Walter, Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Wardle, Charles


Hammond, Philip
Wells, Bowen


Hawkins, Nick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hayes, John
Whittingdale, John


Heald, Oliver
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Willetts, David


Horam, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)



Jenkin, Bernard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Johnson Smith,
Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey







NOES


Ainger, Nick
Dobbin, Jim


Allan, Richard
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Allen, Graham
Donohoe, Brian H


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Doran, Frank


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Dowd, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Drown, Ms Julia


Atherton, Ms Candy
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Baker, Norman
Edwards, Huw


Barnes, Harry
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Battle, John
Ennis, Jeff


Bayley, Hugh
Fatchett, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fearn, Ronnie


Bennett, Andrew F
Flynn, Paul


Benton, Joe
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Don (Bath)


Berry, Roger
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Best, Harold
Foulkes, George


Betts, Clive
Fyfe, Maria


Blackman, Liz
Galloway, George


Blizzard, Bob
Gapes, Mike


Borrow, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Godman, Norman A


Browne, Desmond
Golding, Mrs Llin


Buck, Ms Karen
Grant, Bernie


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Burgon, Colin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burnett, John
Grogan, John


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gunnell, John


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hain, Peter


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Canavan, Dennis
Hanson, David


Casale, Roger
Harris, Dr Evan


Caton, Martin
Harvey, Nick


Chaytor, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chisholm, Malcolm
Healey, John


Church, Ms Judith
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clapham, Michael
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heppell, John


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clwyd, Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hoon, Geoffrey


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hope, Phil


Coleman, Iain
Hopkins, Kelvin


Colman, Tony
Howells, Dr Kim


Connarty, Michael
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cooper, Yvette
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corbett, Robin
Hurst, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hutton, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jamieson, David


Cummings, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W  Hessle)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
(Welwyn Hatfield)


(Copeland)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Ms Jenny


Darvill, Keith
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dawson, Hilton
Keetch, Paul


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kemp, Fraser





Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rendel, David


Kidney, David
Rooney, Terry


King, Andy (Rugby  Kenilworth)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rowlands, Ted


Kirkwood, Archy
Roy, Frank


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ryan, Ms Joan


Laxton, Bob
Sanders, Adrian


Lepper, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Levitt, Tom
Shaw, Jonathan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livsey, Richard
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Skinner, Dennis


Lock, David
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Miss Geraldine


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
(Morecambe  Lunesdale)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McFall, John
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Soley, Clive


McIsaac, Shona
Southworth, Ms Helen


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Squire, Ms Rachel


McNamara, Kevin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stevenson, George


Marek, Dr John
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stott, Roger


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stringer, Graham


Martlew, Eric
Stunell, Andrew


Maxton, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Meale, Alan
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Milburn, Alan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Miller, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mitchell, Austin
Timms, Stephen


Moffatt, Laura
Tipping, Paddy


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Todd, Mark


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Touhig, Don


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Trickett, Jon


Motley, Elliot
Truswell, Paul


Mountford, Kali
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Mudie, George
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Mullin, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tyler, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Walley, Ms Joan


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Wareing, Robert N


Norris, Dan
Watts, David


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Webb, Steve


Olner, Bill
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Neill, Martin
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Öpik, Lembit
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Organ, Mrs Diana
(Swansea W)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Pearson, Ian
Wills, Michael


Pike, Peter L
Wilson, Brian


Plaskitt, James
Winnick, David


Pollard, Kerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Pope, Greg
Wise, Audrey


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Worthington, Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Wray, James


Prosser, Gwyn
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Purchase, Ken
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Quinn, Lawrie
Wyatt, Derek


Radice, Giles



Rammell, Bill
Tellers for the Noes:


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Robert Ainworth.


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5

ADDITIONAL MEMBER SYSTEM: PARTY LISTS AND INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES

Amendment made: No. 75, in page 3, leave out line 19 and insert—
'(3) The list must not include more than twelve persons (but may include only one).'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Clause 7

ADDITIONAL MEMBER SYSTEM: RETURN OF MEMBERS

Amendment proposed: No. 212, in page 4, line 36, leave out
'in which they appear on the list'
and insert
'of the number of votes cast for the candidates'.—[Mr. Livsey.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 248.

Division No. 233]
[10.53 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Livsey, Richard


Baker, Norman
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Öpik, Lembit


Burnett, John
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fearn, Ronnie
Sanders, Adrian


Foster, Don (Bath)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tyler, Paul


Harris, Dr Evan
Webb, Steve


Harvey, Nick
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Keetch, Paul
Mr. Andrew Stunell and Mr. Edward Davey.


Kirkwood, Archy



NOES


Ainger, Nick
Church, Ms Judith


Allen, Graham
Clapham, Michael


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clark, Dr Lynda


Ashton, Joe
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Barnes, Harry
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coaker, Vernon


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bennett, Andrew F
Coleman, Iain


Benton, Joe
Colman, Tony


Bermingham, Gerald
Connarty, Michael


Berry, Roger
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Best, Harold
Cooper, Yvette


Blackman, Liz
Corbett, Robin


Blizzard, Bob
Corbyn, Jeremy


Borrow, David
Corston, Ms Jean


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cousins, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E) 
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cummings, John


Browne, Desmond
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Buck, Ms Karen
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Burden, Richard
(Copeland)


Burgon, Colin
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Darvill, Keith


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Canavan, Dennis
Davidson, Ian


Casale, Roger
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Caton, Martin
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Chaytor, David
Dawson, Hilton


Chisholm, Malcolm
Dean, Mrs Janet





Dobbin, Jim
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Lock, David


Donohoe, Brian H
McAvoy, Thomas


Doran, Frank
McCabe, Steve


Dowd, Jim
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Drown, Ms Julia
McDonagh, Siobhain


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McDonnell, John


Edwards, Huw
McFall, John


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Ennis, Jeff
McIsaac, Shona


Fatchett, Derek
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Flynn, Paul
Mactaggart, Fiona


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Marek, Dr John


Foulkes, George
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Fyfe, Maria
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Galloway, George
Martlew, Eric


Gapes, Mike
Maxton, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Meale, Alan


Godman, Norman A
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Milburn, Alan


Grant, Bernie
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mitchell, Austin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Moffatt, Laura


Grogan, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gunnell, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hain, Peter
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Morley, Elliot


Hanson, David
Mountford, Kali


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mudie, George


Healey, John
Mullin, Chris


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hepburn, Stephen
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Heppell, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Norris, Dan


Hill, Keith
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, Bill


Hodge, Ms Margaret
O'Neill, Martin


Hoey, Kate
Organ, Mrs Diana


Home Robertson, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pearson, Ian


Hope, Phil
Pike, Peter L


Hopkins, Kelvin
Plaskitt, James


Howells, Dr Kim
Pollard, Kerry


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)
Primarolo, Dawn


Humble, Mrs Joan
Prosser, Gwyn


Hurst, Alan
Purchase, Ken


Hutton, John
Quinn, Lawrie


Iddon, Dr Brian
Radice, Giles


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Rammell, Bill


Jamieson, David
Raynsford, Nick


Johnson, Alan (Hull W  Hessle)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Rooney, Terry


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Ms Jenny
Roy, Frank


(Wdvem'ton SW)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shaw, Jonathan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Sheerman, Barry


Kemp, Fraser
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Kidney, David
Skinner, Dennis


King, Andy (Rugby  Kenilworth)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
(Morecambe  Lunesdale)


Laxton, Bob
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Lepper, David
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Levitt, Tom
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Southworth, Ms Helen






Squire, Ms Rachel
Walley, Ms Joan


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Wareing, Robert N


Steinberg, Gerry
Watts, David


Stevenson, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Stoate, Dr Howard
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Stott, Roger
(Swansea W)


Stringer, Graham
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wills, Michael


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winnick, David


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wise, Audrey


Timms, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Tipping, Paddy
Wray, James


Todd, Mark
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Touhig, Don
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Trickett, Jon
Wyatt, Derek


Truswell, Paul



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts.


Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Question accordingly negatived.
It being after Eleven o'clock,  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 11

POWER TO MAKE PROVISION ABOUT ELECTIONS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 153, in page 7, line 26, after 'except' insert 'by an election petition'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Clause 12

DISQUALIFICATION FROM BEING ASSEMBLY MEMBER

Amendment made: No. 76, in page 7, line 44, leave out
'19(2)(b) or 20(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982'
and insert
'17(2)(b) or 18(7) of the Audit Commission Act 1998'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Clause 16

SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES

Amendments made: No. 77, in page 10, line 11, leave out 'or allowances'.

No. 78, in page 10, line 14, leave out 'or allowances'.

No. 79, in page 10, line 15, at end insert—
'() A determination or direction under this section may provide for different allowances for different cases.'.

No. 122, in page 10, line 20, leave out from 'section' to end of line 22.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Clause 18

PENSIONS ETC.

Amendment made: No. 123, in page 11, line 33, leave out from 'section' to end of line 35.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Clause 20

OATH OF AFFIRMATION OF ALLEGIANCE

Amendments made: No. 80, in page 12, line 22, leave out

'cease to be an Assembly member'.

No. 81, in page 12, line 23, at end insert
'cease to be an Assembly member (so that his seat is vacant)'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Clause 23

TRANSFERS: SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendment made: No. 235, in page 13, leave out lines 36 to 39 and insert—
'(a) section 3(4) and (Polls for ascertaining views of the public)(5),
(b)sections 121 to 138, and
(c)Part VII so far as relating to the provisions specified in paragraphs (a) and (b).'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 218, in page 14, leave out lines 10 to 18.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 219, in page 14, line 11, after 'culture,', insert 'or'.

No. 220, in page 14, leave out lines 14 to 16. 
No. 221, in page 14, leave out lines 19 to 29.
No. 222, in page 14, line 37, at end insert—
'(11) Nothing in this Act shall permit the Assembly to exercise any function or enjoy any power in any part of England.'.

Mr. Evans: It has just been demonstrated that another day to consider the Bill on Report would have been extremely useful, as it would have allowed us to examine in detail other elements arising from Government amendments and new clauses. At least in the 54 minutes remaining to us today, we shall be able to debate some important matters, including those that arise from this group of amendments. They relate to clause 23 and are consequential on clauses 21 and 22 and the assembly's functions, especially in relation to cross-border areas.
Dispute would arise when the assembly used its powers to exercise functions on a cross-border area, which is defined in subsection (7) as
an area that includes a part (but not the whole) of England as well as the whole or a part of Wales.
The Secretary of State did not feel it worth including a clause that would make it necessary for the Assembly to consult Ministers before using its power in England. In reality, that means that people in England could be directly affected by the actions of the Assembly. Yet, because they do not have a vote for that body, they would have no way of influencing its decisions.
I have been asked before whether I was thinking of standing for the Welsh assembly. I know that I have disappointed some right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House by saying that I have no intention of standing for the assembly, along with virtually everyone else in this place, especially those representing constituencies in Wales. I have always felt that the people of Ribble Valley have no interest in the deliberations of the Welsh Assembly as it pertained to them. However, it appears that there will be people in England who will be directly affected by, and interested in, what is going on in the assembly, yet they will have no vote, and no representation within it. If they write to Members of the


Assembly, to whom will they write? Will there be an onus on those Members to respond or even to take any notice at all?
A number of cross-border issues could arise, including those that involve water authorities such as Dwr Cymru, Dee Valley in Chester, and Severn Trent. There are sites of special scientific interest such as those covering the Severn estuary, some drainage fisheries and the Severn bore. There are no proper maritime borders for Wales. Highways may be involved, and so may parish councils.
We have tried to redress the imbalance through the amendments. The Secretary of State apparently does not believe that we should examine the problems that will exist and try to do something about them. Amendment No. 222 reads:
Nothing in this Act shall permit the Assembly to exercise any function or enjoy any power in any part of England.
That amendment is the crux of the matter. We do not believe that the assembly should have any say over anything that happens in England because the Bill does not address properly the concerns of people living in cross-border areas.
For instance, as far as I can tell, there is no proper device or procedure whereby the assembly would consult people living in England before it assumed power over cross-border areas. The Minister shakes his head; it will be interesting to see what consultation will occur with people who live in England and who will be affected by any decisions taken by the Welsh assembly. Those people will have no representation on the assembly.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said earlier—in a most telling contribution to this evening's proceedings—that we should be naive to assume that there will be no repercussions following the decisions that we are taking in granting a form of devolution to Wales. It is not just a question of the Barnett formula and, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, of people in England thinking, "We are strapped for cash, so we'll look at paring back money to Scotland and Wales."
I believe that people living in England will feel resentment when they see that the Welsh assembly has power over parts of cross-border areas.
In the past, there was talk of no taxation without representation. This is a plain case of no representation. I wonder whether the Minister understands the concerns of people who live on the English side of the border. We are not talking about the control of cemeteries in Fulham and transference of power—matters that we considered in an early debate on the legislation—with the Welsh assembly having power over Welsh people who are living and English people who were dead. I understand that that matter has now been resolved.
We are considering an issue that will have a real impact upon those who live in cross-border areas. That is why we have moved the amendments. We want to address any problems that may arise in the future. We do not wish to fuel resentment among people who live in England regarding the Welsh assembly. We appreciate that the assembly will be a reality, and we wish it godspeed. We want to ensure that it works in the best interests of the people of Wales. If the Bill remains unamended or the concerns of those who live in England are not addressed, it will have a detrimental effect on good relations between people living in England and in Wales, and particularly among people in cross-border areas.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): It may assist the House if I put

the amendments into context and explain the situation. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for the way in which he has moved them. In so doing, he made some constructive and important points that must be answered. I shall explain briefly the background to clause 23(6), which introduces the concept of a cross-border area. It is important that we have an opportunity to debate this matter as it allows me to expunge a series of phantoms and misunderstandings surrounding this question.
It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has moved the amendments not in order to be mischievous but in an attempt to secure an explanation. When I have provided one, I hope that he will accept that the situation is quite reasonable. The position now is that the Government have flexible arrangements for dealing with issues that straddle the border between Wales and England. Water, notably, does not flow neatly down a particular side of the border. The Severn, Wye and Dee rivers all rise in Wales and flow through parts of England. There are watersheds that cross boundaries.
We have had practical and sensible arrangements to deal with that for many years. The Welsh Office looks after the administration of some issues to do with water and rivers that extend beyond Wales's boundaries. Correspondingly, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions administers some matters for Montgomeryshire. I do not know what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) feels about that, but it is a practical, common-sense approach to the problem of cross-border areas.
11.15 pm
There is no compelling reason why we should now draw a doctrinaire line down the border between Wales and England, and command the waters to part along it. I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman was trying to play Moses parting the Red sea. I suspect that he was not, given what he said when he moved the amendment, but I shall have my say anyway. He has got his history wrong. The Secretary of State is the real Moses figure, leading the people of Wales to safety from the centralised, corrupt Tory quango state as the waters part before him to reveal a gleaming new Welsh assembly, and close after him to drown the Tories as power is decentralised to the people. The hon. Gentleman may prefer another historical figure, King Canute, holding back the tide of devolution. He says that he is not trying to do that, but if he is, he should check what happened to King Canute.
There is no reason why we should have more costly and complex administrative arrangements on the ground post devolution. Clause 23(6) allows the assembly to be given functions with respect to cross-border areas: that is, areas including a part but not the whole of England, and the whole or part of Wales.
The Government have no plans to transfer cross-border functions to the assembly unless that is the basis on which they are already operated. Subsection (6) permits the transfer order to include such functions in the order under clause 22. The transfer process must be initiated by the Government, but it cannot be completed unless Parliament, which obviously includes elected representatives from England, approves the transfer order.
The Government are considering giving the assembly cross-border functions for some bodies and functions relating to the water industry, flood defence and internal drainage that are currently exercised by the Welsh Office.
There is nothing novel in those proposals. Section 63 of the Wales Act 1978 provided that any function exercisable in respect of the Welsh water authority was deemed to be a power exercisable as regards Wales, whereas any function in respect of the Severn Trent water authority was deemed not to be a power exercisable with respect to Wales. Both those water authorities, and their successor water companies, operate across the border.

Mr. Letwin: The Minister did not mention education. What is the position of schools in Herefordshire that come within a Welsh local education authority, and power over which the Secretary of State transfers to the Welsh assembly under the transfer of powers order?

Mr. Hain: I am not aware of any schools in that position. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to pupils whose parents choose to send to schools across the border, that is a different matter, and it is not covered by those arrangements.
As we signalled in the draft transfer order, the Government are considering transferring to the assembly various functions under the Water Industries Act 1991 with respect to the Dwr Cymru, Wrexham and the Chester-Dee valley water companies. Amendments Nos. 219 to 222 would prevent the transfer of such functions to the assembly. I am sure that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley.

Mr. Grieve: The Secretary of State has said that, once the assembly comes into being, he will not be answerable to the House for what goes on in the assembly. A person living on the English side of the border may be subject to maladministration as a result of an act of the assembly, and may wish to have that matter dealt with. How can it be dealt with by the House if it is in the assembly's remit because the powers have been handed to the assembly for administrative purposes?

Mr. Hain: To the extent that those would be cross-border powers, they would be handed to the assembly to be exercisable by the authority of Parliament. Ultimately, Parliament could be held to account if the situation that the hon. Gentleman suggests were to arise.

Mr. Jenkin: Does the Minister seriously contemplate that the House will legislate to interfere in the affairs of the assembly in respect of the grievances of English constituents in cross-border areas? That is the logic of what he has just said.

Mr. Hain: With respect, that is not the logic of what I have just said. I was asked how a grievance could be redressed, and the answer is that that could be done through the constituent's representative and, ultimately, by representations to Parliament. That is exactly what happens at present. If the Welsh Office operated in such a fashion over agreements on cross-border areas with Welsh Water or some other body, representations could be made in the House. That is the current procedure.

Mr. Evans: Under current arrangements, problems can be raised in Parliament with the Secretary of State. After devolution, that responsibility will move to the assembly,

and it will be a waste of time for people in England to put questions to the Secretary of State for Wales, because he will not have the power to deal with them.

Mr. Hain: I accept that the hon. Gentleman is not raising this matter mischievously. Let us assume that a constituent in Herefordshire or Shropshire found that a river was encroaching on his land and that it contained effluent that was the responsibility of Welsh Water or some other authority. He could raise the issue with his elected Member, who could take it to the appropriate Minister. That Minister could make representations to the assembly in the same way as happens with the Welsh Office at present.

Mr. Öpik: Surely the situation is hardly new, and does not require a great deal of thought to resolve. If there is an issue over the service that is provided by, say, Shrewsbury hospital to one of my constituents who lives in a different health authority area, it would be resolved by discussion. The Minister will agree that Conservative Members are putting up a paper tiger. We shall not be debating in the House the problems of a constituent who is not getting health provision from that hospital. Conservative Members are making something out of nothing.

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman puts the matter extremely well, and with his usual eloquence. It is a phantom issue.

Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hain: I shall do so shortly. I do not mind spending time crawling all over this issue. It uses up Opposition time, and that is a matter for them.
I should draw to the attention of the House another mechanism for redress. The Government will table an amendment to provide a Welsh ombudsman who will deal with complaints, if that is the route that a citizen wishes to take, about any of the assembly's functions. I was asked how issues could be raised in Parliament and I have answered that.

Mr. Paterson: The Minister is being grossly complacent about the matter. I have a case at present over a school in my constituency that may be damaged by the change in policy of a Welsh education authority. I can raise that matter in the House, but when the Bill becomes law I shall not be able to do that.

Mr. Hain: Again, that is based on ignorance about the consequences of devolution. The hon. Gentleman will be able to raise in questions to the English Minister with responsibility for education any matters that affect the hon. Gentleman's education authority; indeed, he will be able to raise with any other Minister any matters that affect his local constituency. If he asks the Minister to make representations directly to the Welsh assembly on a practical matter, that would be as easily resolvable as it is at present. This is a complete non-issue.

Mr. Paul Keetch: As I represent the English constituency with the longest border with Wales, I have had to deal with several cross-border issues, particularly in relation to Welsh Water and other attitudes across the Brecon Beacons. I and, I believe, the people of Herefordshire have no problem at all with the concept of a


devolved assembly in Wales. The suggestion of Her Majesty's official Opposition that that might cause a problem is ridiculous. If there were a problem with the water authority, I should take it up with Welsh Water. In the same way, if there were a problem with a cross-border issue based in England, I should expect a Welsh Member to take it up with the authority in England. We are hearing claptrap from the official Opposition.

Mr. Hain: That was an extremely helpful intervention. The hon. Gentleman explained the position exactly. Whereas Conservative Members have suddenly become completely neutered and impotent politically as a result of devolution, the hon. Gentleman—perhaps it explains why he beat the Conservatives in Herefordshire—is able adequately to represent his constituents on those practical matters. Perhaps Conservative Members could take some lessons from him.

Mr. Ancram: May I ask the Minister another simple question? He has said that my hon. Friends could raise a matter of the type that has been described with the English Minister with responsibility for education, although it was within the competence of the Welsh assembly, and that that Minister could raise it with the Welsh assembly Secretary. Is the Minister aware that, in the case of Northern Ireland, the Speaker ruled, I think in the 1930s, that such questioning was incompetent? Is he giving us an assurance that that ruling will not apply in this case?

Mr. Hain: I am giving the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that, in the case of a practical issue of representation that was raised in the House, of course any Minister will be able to make representations to the Welsh assembly or even perhaps through the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not see any problem with that. I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says at all. As I say, if there were a grievance that needed to be pursued, the Welsh ombudsman could do so.
"Wales" is defined in legislation as the areas of the counties created by the Local Government Act 1972. That includes any part of the sea shore to the low water mark. In Acts of Parliament, Wales does not include any part of the sea, yet my the Secretary of State for Wales exercises various environmental and fishery functions around the coast of Wales in what are UK territorial waters.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) will confirm, a recent example was the restrictions on fishing that were put in place following the Sea Empress disaster. Those restrictions were imposed by the Secretary of State even though Wales does not include the sea in which that pollution took place—precisely because of those provisions. We are talking about practical matters here, not those great constitutional phantoms that have been raised by Conservative Members.
Amendment No. 218 would deny the assembly functions that have long been administered by the Welsh Office.

Mr. Ancram: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hain: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) shakes his head, but that is a fact. It has caused no problems and devolution will not cause any problems in future. The Bill rightly allows for the possibility that functions such as those could be transferred to the assembly.
Moreover, why the official Opposition should want to prevent the assembly from being responsible for the Welsh language and culture is beyond me. I point out that one effect of amendments Nos. 218 and 222—perhaps right hon. and hon. Members will seek to justify this, if they are aware of it—is to rule out the possibility that the assembly might give support to Welsh language bodies that operate outside Wales. An example is Ysgol Gymraeg Llundain—the Welsh school in London. Of course I am not promising that the assembly will support such bodies—that would be a matter for the assembly—but the amendments would not even allow it the choice, and that is not a serious option.
The Bill contains appropriate mechanisms to reflect the fact that, while the assembly may be given functions in parts of England, it will not be elected by the people who live there. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised that point.
I emphasise that Parliament has to approve the transfer order before it can take effect. Elected representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom—including the hon. Member for Ribble Valley and others who have intervened in my speech—will be able to have their say on the transfer order in respect of cross-border functions.
The Government also accept that it is important for the necessary accountability arrangements to exist in the House in the limited cases where the assembly is exercising functions in parts of England. That is why clause 43(5) ensures that, where the assembly makes secondary legislation that applies to parts of England—various regulations such as those that I have described—it will continue to be subject to parliamentary procedures. I have answered that point adequately, although those on the Opposition Front Bench do not appear to recognise that.
11.30 pm
Clause 23(8) further provides that, in relation to any assembly functions in the cross-border area, which may include secondary legislation and matters such as determinations or directions, the transfer order can require that the assembly should consult or obtain the agreement of a United Kingdom Minister before it exercises the function. The transfer order will in due course set out our proposals for the use of the power.
I should like to take the opportunity to tell the House that we are looking further at the wording of clause 23, partly in the light of some of the amendments that were also tabled in Committee. It may be that some technical adjustments to clause 23 will need to be made in another place. If so, we shall table them in Committee in another place. Any such amendments will not enable the transfer order to give the assembly more functions in England than would have been possible under clause 23 as drafted, and we shall maintain the mechanisms that are already in the Bill with respect to the assembly's exercise of functions in England.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who dismissed my earlier point with some disdain. I do not have the precise quotations from Hansard, as I have not had a chance to get them, but I can refer to the Library research paper, which is normally very accurate. It states:
The question of non-discussion of Northern Ireland affairs at Westminster finally changed with a Speaker's ruling in 1923 that questions on matters delegated to Stormont must be addressed to Northern Ireland ministers, not United Kingdom Ministers in the House of Commons at Westminster. The Speaker rejected any link


between the fact that Northern Ireland continued to send members to Westminster, and the ability of the Commons to discuss devolved matters. Even before then, the Speaker had said that, as Parliament has legislated for Northern Ireland devolution, 'it is quite impossible for us to have questions and answers on a subject for which Ministers on this Bench do not hold responsibility. I cannot say more than that.'
That ruling remains valid. It would preclude what the Minister has told us would be available to my hon. Friends, and, unless he can say that the ruling has changed, he should withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Hain: I am not disputing what the right hon. Gentleman has read out quite properly in relation to Northern Ireland. However, I am not aware of any cross-border areas that England has with Northern Ireland. It is entirely different, and the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Northern Ireland Minister, must surely know that.
The points that have been raised by hon. Members, quite legitimately, relate to issues that might affect their constituencies in England. For example, they are entitled to raise issues in relation to the local education authority with an education Minister in England. If the Education Minister in England felt that some transfer order—although I cannot conceive of one in relation to education—was not operating properly, clearly the body that passed that transfer order should clarify it.

Mr. Letwin: Has the Minister consulted the Chair about whether that ruling would apply in this case? Secondly, when he returns to the Department, he will find that there are primary schools in Herefordshire which are covered by Welsh education authorities. I would be interested to know—

Mr. Keetch: Name one.

Mr. Letwin: I have the details, and I shall provide them in a letter to the hon. Gentleman.
If the Minister finds that that is true, will he assure the House that an English Member of Parliament will nevertheless be able to take the case of such a school, in Parliament, before an English Education Minister and have that Minister answer a question about the school?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we get into deep waters and start discussing the Speaker's ruling, it should be remembered that the Chair will make no ruling on those matters until the final legislation is decided on. The House should therefore not discuss whether the Speaker has been consulted.

Mr. Hain: As I have said before, I am aware of cross-border pupils—in both directions—but I am not aware of any cross-border schools. I have had advice to confirm that. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is scampering off to find evidence to back what he has said, I shall look at it with great interest. I am the Education Minister for Wales, among other functions, and I am not aware of having any responsibility for schools in Herefordshire.

Mr. Leigh: Is it a fair summation to say that an English Member aggrieved in this way will be able to make informal representations to a Minister of the Crown, who

in turn will be able to make informal representations to the assembly; but that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) will not be able to ask formal questions on the Floor of the House? That is our point; the Minister has not answered it.

Mr. Hain: We really are making a mountain out of a molehill. I am quite happy to keep demolishing those mountains, although it is a waste of time. If the hon. Gentleman is a Member for a constituency along the Welsh border, and an issue arises that affects his English constituency, he is entitled to raise it with the relevant English Minister. The Minister then decides what is within his power, and what representations he can make.

Mr. Keetch: I look forward to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) finding a Herefordshire school that is administered by Wales. I hope that he is not falling into that trap simply because some parts of Wales have Herefordshire postal addresses. For instance, Hay-on-Wye, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), is in Wales but has a Herefordshire postal address.
Many people in Herefordshire, before the election, faced the problem that my predecessor, a Conservative, was continually told by the previous Government that the problems he raised were for quangos to answer. Ministers hid behind that answer. Are Opposition Front Benchers now suggesting that the same will happen with the Welsh assembly, which will be an elected assembly, not an appointed quango?

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes his point very well. We are getting rid of a lot of quangos and subjecting the remaining ones to democratic accountability through the National Assembly for Wales.
The Welsh Office has responsibility for Welsh coastal waters, and for certain matters in parts of England, because natural watersheds do not follow the national boundary.

Mr.Paterson: rose—

Mr. Hain: I shall not give way again.
The Opposition amendments would prevent the assembly from inheriting those functions, and they disregard the sensible protection of interests in England, as well as in Wales, that the Government have included in the Bill. That is why I cannot accept the amendment, and would urge its withdrawal.

Mr. Hayes: These amendments touch again on democratic legitimacy based on proper consent. The Minister has signally failed to deal with that issue this evening. Consent must be sought before it is given, and if it is not sought from the English people who are affected—which, clearly, it cannot be in the case of the Welsh assembly—it cannot be given. The Welsh assembly will therefore act with political authority where it has no legitimacy because it has neither sought nor been given consent.

Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayes: I shall give way, because I am interested to hear a little more from "The Observer Book of Political Theory".

Mr. Öpik: I have not yet published such a book, but the hon. Gentleman will get a signed copy as soon as I do.
In his constituency work, has the hon. Gentleman ever sought to acquire a health service on behalf of one of his constituents in a health authority area that does not cover his constituency? If so, how does he justify his action, given that it had no democratic legitimacy whatever?

Mr. Hayes: I am torn between pity and contempt for the hon. Gentleman. The democratic legitimacy of this House is shared by all its Members in respect of areas over which the House has jurisdiction.
The Minister dealt with the Executive functions of the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. However, we are discussing the transfer of legislative power and political competence, which is not equivalent to Executive power as exercised by that Department.

Mr. Hain: I am sorry that I have to waste the House's time by repeating what I have been saying over the past half an hour. Those functions are exercisable on behalf of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, for example, only because of the authority of this House in the first place. This House would not have given that authority if it felt that its Members' interests, or their constituents' interests, were being jeopardised.

Mr. Hayes: The House's authority, transferred to the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, does not prevent representatives of constituencies that might be affected from taking up those issues in this House. The difficulty that arises from the Bill is not insignificant—indeed, constitutionally it is fundamental. I accept that it is a point of detail and that the number of occasions on which it occurred would be relatively small, but it covers a variety of matters such as highways, education and water, with which the Minister dealt at length. Education is probably the most worrying of those, for reasons that were given earlier in the debate.
The nub of this issue is this: what would happen if one of those issues arose and hon. Members could not make proper representations to the authority with political competence? The sort of informal representations that they could make to the Welsh assembly would be of no more import than those that might be made by an outside body of laymen. They could make no proper political representations in the sense in which the House understands them.

Mr. Grieve: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a question not just of representation but of accountability? The Minister does not appear to have heard of matters like the Crichel Down affair, where ultimately Ministers were held to account for the activities of their Department. In the case of the assembly, does my hon. Friend agree that the point about the cross-border authorities is that there will be no means of holding the assembly to account in this House?

Mr. Hayes: Formal representations such as the type to which I am referring can properly be made only to the authority that has the power to deal with them. If responsibility for those affairs were with the House of Commons, formal representations could be made to the House to deal with specific problems. However, that is not the case. Political competence is being transferred.

The failure to acknowledge the transfer of political competence and its repercussions for cases in English constituencies that border Wales lies at the heart of the Minister's misunderstanding of the amendments' significance.

Mr. Keetch: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayes: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman as he is one of the more intelligent Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Keetch: I am enormously grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would he care to give way to his hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who referred to a Herefordshire school that is allegedly administered by a Welsh local education authority?

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is generous not only to my hon. Friend but to the House in giving my hon. Friend that opportunity. When he has his notes in order, I shall consider giving way to him, but I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) wants to intervene.

Mr. Paterson: I thank my hon. Friend.
The Minister seems to be being wilfully obtuse. I am currently dealing with a case in which a Welsh education authority may be changing its policy in a way that will prevent 120 children from going to a Shropshire school. Today, I can bring that up in the House; in future—[Interruption.] The children live in Wales. It is a Welsh policy, which I cannot bring up with an English Education Minister. In future—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.

Mr. Hayes: I bow to my hon. Friend's intervention, in the sense that he has practical experience of the issues of which we speak. I was speaking from the perspective of someone concerned about the constitutional implications. Because my constituency does not border Wales, I have no particular casework experiences, but various hon. Members clearly have experiences of real, live issues that will be difficult to resolve because of the problems with which the amendments seek to deal.

Mr. Hain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that it is Conservative Members who are dragging the debate out and repeating themselves so that they can subsequently claim that there has not been enough time to discuss other issues?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No hon. Member is dragging anything out. If any hon. Member did so, I would call him to order. [Interruption.]

Mr. Hayes: I must say to the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to sit down while I am on my feet.
I must tell the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that there should be no conversation in the Chamber when an hon. Member is addressing it.

Mr. Hayes: Again, I am extremely grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Along with you, I admonish my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) following the discourtesy that he has shown not only to the House, but to me personally. I shall expect proper recompense in due course.
Because I do not want to lend any credence to the Minister's bogus claim about drawing the debate out, let me make myself clear in one paragraph. The simple fact is that this is not just a question of the exercise of executive authority; it is a question of legislative power and responsibility. Inevitably, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has said, responsibility and accountability should accompany the power to make decisions. Because political competence is being transferred—political competence that affects areas of England, not just areas of Wales—the amendments are essential if we are to avoid a considerable constitutional imbalance. I think that is a moderate way of describing it.
Amendment No 222 would legitimise matters by providing that the assembly should not
exercise any function or enjoy any power in any part of England." 
That amendment is appropriate and necessary in bringing back to constitutional equilibrium what I think is a considerable mess that the Minister has done little to clear up tonight.

Mr. Jenkin: I hope that I can briefly introduce some clarity to the debate, which I am afraid neither the Minister nor his Liberal Democrat associate succeeded in doing. Let me deal initially with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, this is a matter of accountability. The hon. Gentleman gets satisfaction when dealing with local authorities or health authorities outside his constituency, because they are answerable for policies set down by United Kingdom Ministers who are answerable to the House. So when he tables a question in the House, whichever Minister he addresses it to, it will eventually be transferred to the Minister with executive responsibility for the health or education policy concerned. That is why the system of accountability works.

Mr. Öpik: Even so, it would still be possible for reasonable people to carry on operating in exactly the same way. Is the balance not between a pedantic terror and the common-sense world in which the rest of us live?

Mr. Jenkin: When the hon. Gentleman has been a little longer in the House, he will realise that the problems of accountability arise most acutely when people are being obstructive and denying responsibility for events. Ministers do that, and so do local authorities and health authorities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House quite a long time, I should like him to face the Chair, and address the Chair.

Mr. Jenkin: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I want the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to consider what happens when the system of accountability goes wrong. It is when people are denying responsibility and trying to obstruct accountability that difficulties arise.
It is not disputed that there will be occasions when people living in English constituencies will have grievances against the policies being pursued by the Welsh assembly. That is what the problem of cross-border areas is all about. The Minister said that an English Member of Parliament could represent an English constituent with a grievance against the Welsh assembly by tabling a question to an English Minister in the United Kingdom Parliament. The problem is that United Kingdom Ministers will no longer have executive responsibility for the activities of the Welsh assembly, so the question would be out of order.
However, the section on "Order of Business" in "Erskine May" contains, under the heading "Rules of order regarding form and contents of questions", a paragraph on "Ministerial Responsibility", on page 298, which runs as follows
 "Questions to Ministers must relate to matters for which those Ministers are officially responsible. They may be asked for statements of their policy or intentions on such matters, or for administrative or legislative action.
Sub-paragraph (3), on the next page, adds:
It is not in order in a question to ask for action to deal with matters under the control of local or other statutory authorities".
So the exact scenario that the Minister offered us—the idea that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) could table a question to an English Education Minister about a Welsh education policy—is false. He could not, because such a question would be out of order.
I raised the issue with Madam Speaker on 21 January, on a point of order relating to the Scotland Bill, and I referred to the ruling cited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) in reading out the extract from the Library briefing. I asked Madam Speaker whether she agreed that the ruling made in 1923 was unreasonable. However, she said that she was not in a position to change that ruling.
The position is therefore precisely the opposite of that which the Minister described to the House a few moments ago. There is no system for making the Welsh assembly accountable in response to questions tabled in this Parliament by English Members. That is the problem with cross-border areas. It is a matter of accountability, and what the Minister says simply will not wash.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 24

GENERAL TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ETC.

Amendment made: No. 82, in page 15, line 14, leave out'
', so far as is required for continuing its effect,'. —[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

PUBLIC BODIES SUBJECT TO REFORM BY ASSEMBLY

Mr. Wigley: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 76, line 12, at end insert —


'5C. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 51, in page 76, leave out line 32.

Mr. Wigley: The amendments deal with the vital issue of higher education. Higher education is of central importance in developing our economic well-being in Wales. Education has played a considerable part in Ireland's economic miracle. Higher education is also critical in advancing the cultural identity of Wales and in maximising the cultural fulfilment of individuals and communities. Higher education is the key to creating a new quality in all walks of life in Wales.
The national assembly will help to mould and assist the healthy development of higher education in Wales, both for what it is in its own right and for what it can do to advance Wales as a nation. It is against that background that we have to ask why the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales is listed under part III of schedule 3 among the bodies which may only gain functions. It should be listed under part I, among the bodies which may gain or lose functions. That is what the amendments would achieve.
The House is well aware that the Further Education Funding Council for Wales already appears in part I, so why should higher education be treated differently? They should both be co-ordinated, because there is a considerable overlap. They should be treated together for these purposes, particularly in the context of lifelong learning.
We need greater co-operation between the higher education institutions in Wales rather than that they should guard their own vested interests. The national assembly has a role in creating the conditions for that co-operation. Many higher education institutions in Wales are small and suffer diseconomies of scale. In a world where competition for finance is so acute, co-operation is needed. The University of Wales has adequate critical mass. If there were collaboration between the two levels, they would be much more effective.
On research funding, Wales's track record, except, possibly, for that in Cardiff, has been fairly limited. We have nothing like the 5 per cent. proportion of UK funding of research councils that we might expect. Therefore, we hope that the assembly will be able to co-ordinate the work of higher and further education, for which purpose the two bodies should be put on an equal footing. That is what the amendments provide.

Mr. Livsey: I support the amendments. I was a member of the Welsh agricultural college, a higher education body, before I came into the House. It is now part of the Welsh Rural Institute and of the university of Wales. The Welsh agricultural college was founded with the help of the Welsh local authorities. The matter of higher education should be considered by the assembly.

Mr. Hain: I accept the sincerity with which both the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) have spoken to the amendment, and I agree with many of the points that they make. Higher education makes a vital multi-billion pound contribution to the Welsh economy. It is also a part of our lifelong learning strategy. I want to see the barriers between HE and FE broken down as much as possible. That is crucial to delivering our strategy.
We want to co-ordinate the provision of higher and further education more effectively, and the Welsh assembly will enable us to do that. The higher education sector is ultimately accountable to the Welsh assembly even though we have given it the independence that is provided for in the Bill, in reflection of the traditional independence of the universities. Successive Governments have for decades left decisions on universities' funding to specialised arm's-length bodies—the University Grants Committee and now the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.

It being Twelve midnight,  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Orders of the Day — Clause 35

STAFF

Amendment made: No. 83, in page 21, line 24, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'() Section 1(2) of the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992 (delegation of civil service management functions vested in a Minister of the Crown to any other servant of the Crown) shall have effect as if the reference to any other servant of the Crown included the Assembly.
() Section 1(2) and (3) of the Superannuation Act 1972 (delegation of functions relating to civil service superannuation schemes by Minister for the Civil Service to another Minister etc. and consultation by that Minister or another Minister) shall have effect as if the references to a Minister of the Crown other than the Minister for the Civil Service included the Assembly.'. — [Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 41

POWER TO MAKE DIFFERENT PROVISION FOR WALES

Amendments made: No. 154, in page 22, line 31, leave out from 'enactment' to 'in' in line 33 and insert
'confers or imposes a function exercisable'.
No. 155, in page 22, line 34, leave out
'(so far as exercisable in relation to Wales) the function is'
and insert
'the function is to any extent'.
No. 156, in page 22, line 38, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) Subject to subsection (4), the enactment shall be taken to permit—
(a) the exercise of the function by the Assembly whether or not it is exercised otherwise than by the Assembly, and
(b) the exercise of the function differently by the Assembly (on the one and) and otherwise than by the Assembly (on the other).'.

No. 157, in page 22, line 41, leave out from 'to' to 'in' in line 42 and insert 'a function exercisable'.

No. 158, in page 23, line 1, leave out from 'includes' to 'in' in line 2 and insert 'a function exercisable'.

No. 159, in page 23, line 9, leave out from 'to' to end of line 12 and insert


'exercise a function in relation to Wales whether or not it is exercised in relation to England, or to exercise a function differently in relation to Wales and England, where the function is not (to any extent)—'.

No. 160, in page 23, line 15, at end insert—
'() In this section "enactment" includes an enactment—
(a) contained in an Act passed after this Act, or
(b) made after the passing of this Act.'. —[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 43

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES FOR SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

Amendment made: No. 236, in page 23, line 27, at end insert 'by, or'. —[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 45

REGULATION OF PROCEDURE

Amendment made: No. 124, in page 25, line 18, leave out from 'orders' to end of line 20. —[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 52

ASSEMBLY FIRST SECRETARY

Amendment made: No. 125, in page 27, leave out lines 3 and 4. —[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 55

DELEGATION TO COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES AND STAFF

Amendment made: No. 126, in page 27, leave out lines 25 to 42. —[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 56

SUBJECT COMMITTEES

Amendment made: No. 127, in page 28, leave out lines 2 to 8. —[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 57

MEMBERS OF SUBJECT COMMITTEES ETC.

Amendment made: No. 128, in page 28, leave out lines 9 to 43. —[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 58

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Amendment made: No. 129, in page 28, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 on page 29. —[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 59

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

Amendments made: No. 161, in page 29, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert 'relevant Welsh subordinate legislation.'.

No. 162, in page 29, line 35, leave out'
subordinate legislation made or proposed to be made by the Assembly'

and insert 'relevant Welsh subordinate legislation'.

No. 163, in page 29, line 45, at end insert —
'() For the purposes of this section "relevant Welsh subordinate legislation" is any subordinate legislation —

(a) which is made or proposed to he made by the Assembly, or
(b)which, or a draft of which, is (or but for paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 6 would be) required to be confirmed or approved by the Assembly.'. —[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 60

MEMBERS OF SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ETC.

Amendments made: No. 130, in page 30, line 13, leave out
'to a sub-committee or a member of the Assembly's staff'.

No. 164, in page 30, line 14, at end insert —
'() The standing orders may include provision for securing that, in circumstances specified in the standing orders, any function of the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee which is so specified may be exercised —
 (a) by the member who chairs the committee, or
(b) in the absence of that member, by any other member of the committee authorised by that member.' —.[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 61

AUDIT COMMITTEE

Amendments made: No. 131, in page 30, line 31, leave out '(or further delegate)'.

No. 165, in page 30, line 32, at end insert
except as provided by section 94(3A).'.

No. 132, in page 30, line 33, leave out subsection (7). —[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered tomorrow.

Mr. Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you report to Madam Speaker that because the guillotine has been imposed today, we have had a farrago of parliamentary inspection of the Bill. Perfectly sensible points were made on the question of Cabinet arrangements and the Secretary of State made no answers. He merely read out a crib from his civil servants. On cross-border co-operation —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. To be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, I can tell him that what he is doing is further debating the Bill. He will have a chance tomorrow.

BBC (Scratchcards)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter this evening. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for his personal courtesy in being present to respond to the debate.
The situation to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is simple and deplorable. By screening the programme "National Lottery Big Ticket" next Saturday, the BBC is, in the most specific terms, violating its charter. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I will not allow this to happen in the Chamber. A right hon. Gentleman has an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Kaufman: To be precise, the BBC is violating section 7 of its charter. The charter says:
It shall be the function of the Governors to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of the Corporation in accordance with this Our Charter and in particular (but without limitation) to:- …
(f) … ensure that the Corporation and its employees and all programme makers engaged by the Corporation comply with the provisions of any code which the Corporation is required to draw up for the treatment of controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality and comply with any other code or guidelines applicable to programme content and standards".
The "Big Ticket" programme violates the BBC producers' guidelines and therefore the charter. In a letter to the Secretary of State, the chairman of the BBC governors, Sir Christopher Bland, denies this. He denies it in a letter 10 pages long, in the course of which he says several times that the BBC has taken counsel's advice. Taking counsel's advice implies that one had doubts about the legality of what one has been doing—it is rather like a woman taking a pregnancy test to prove that she is a virgin—but those are the lines on which the BBC is acting.
In his letter to the Secretary of State, Sir Christopher Bland denies my statements that ITV companies would be prohibited from broadcasting a programme equivalent to the one to which I refer. On page 6 of his letter he says:
The BBC believes that the format of the BBC programme would be allowed under ITC codes.
However, I have here a letter sent to me this week by Peter B. Rogers, the chief executive of the ITC. He says:
last summer Camelot approached the ITC and asked about the terms upon which we"—
the ITC—
would allow the National Lottery to feature in ITC's licensed television services.
The note attached to the letter states:
A programme could not be based upon a National Lottery game or include such games. It would not be possible for games to be based, for example, upon National Lottery scratchcards ("Instants").
So the chief executive of the ITC totally contradicts the chairman of the BBC.
Richard Eyre, the chief executive of ITV, wrote to me on 23 March. He said that the programme to which I refer
confers a benefit on Camelot in that the audience for the show will be selected on the basis of a lucky number from a Lottery competition. The ITC would not permit this on ITV because it would compromise the editorial independence of the broadcaster. This is particularly the case with Lottery show programmes where the audience actively participates in the show",
as they do in this programme. Mr. Eyre continued:
In fact, this issue of editorial independence was of concern to ITV and the ITC when, in 1993, ITV and the BBC were bidding for the rights to broadcast the National Lottery. Then, as now, Camelot proposed a method of audience selection based on a Lottery draw. ITV withdrew from the negotiations to broadcast the programme … if "TV Dreams" were to be broadcast on ITV, the ITC would require at least half the audience to have gained a ticket in non-Lottery related ways. Such tickets would have to be as accessible to the general public as Lottery tickets or cards.
In other words, ITV says that Sir Christopher Bland is not telling the truth.
Also on 23 March, I received a letter from Ray Gallagher, the director of public affairs for British Sky Broadcasting. He says:
neither BSkyB nor any other ITC licensee could, unlike the BBC, have set up a programme in cooperation with Camelot based on scratchcards.
Therefore, SirChristopher Bland makes a statement that is blatantly untrue, and expects the House to accept it.
In his letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Sir Christopher says that the producers' guidelines have not been broken. Let me draw the House's attention to those guidelines. With reference to prizes, they say:
BBC programmes should normally pay for the prizes they offer in game shows and viewer and listener competitions. Programme makers should aim to offer original, rather than expensive prizes.
The prizes in this show are paid for by Camelot, and go up to £100,000. The guidelines continue:
Cash prizes should usually be avoided in viewer and listener programmes".
Cash prizes are offered, in violation of the guidelines. Anthea Turner, in the press conference launching the programme on Monday, said that the new show's attraction was that viewers would be able to see people winning enormous sums of money. She said:
This is serious money, this is money that can make and change someone's life.
The guidelines state:
Donations of more substantial prizes are only permissible in exceptional circumstances which do not bring the BBC's editorial integrity into question. For example it might be possible to accept a more substantial prize if offered by an educational institution or research foundation.
I do not think that Camelot claims to be either.
The guidelines state:
If programmes accept donated prizes, the changes should be rung to ensure that the BBC does not appear to favour any institution or company.
However, the changes are not rung; Camelot presents all the prizes.
The guidelines state:
Occasionally, a viewer or listener competition may be run jointly with a suitable outside body such as an academic or artistic institution. Programmes should not mount viewer and listener competitions in conjunction with commercial organisations.
That is exactly what is happening in this case.
The guidelines state:
The BBC should pay a substantial part of the cost of any prize given. Only modest donated prizes may be accepted from a third party for a jointly organised competition.
That guideline is violated.
The guidelines state:
A competition must not risk being interpreted as gambling or a lottery.
It is perfectly clear that the use of scratchcards is gambling.
The guidelines state:
The Act may be contravened if a viewer or listener competition is based on a game of chance and some sort of donation, purchase or contribution is made to enter.
To enter, one has to buy a scratchcard for £2.
Sir Christopher says in his letter that the guidelines do not apply to competitions and programmes organised under the national lottery. There is nothing whatever in the guidelines, which I have examined carefully, that says that the guidelines are somehow invalidated in the case of the national lottery. They run alongside the national lottery guidelines—the national lottery guidelines are additional, but not contradictory.
Let us look at the national lottery guidelines. They state:
The BBC retains editorial control over all BBC programmes and promotions featuring National Lottery draws or games.
However, it not the BBC which is in control. As was pointed out in The Guardian last week:
The 40 contestants chosen to appear on the programme, who each immediately win £1,000 … have to enter a competition … to get a chance to be on the programme.
So it is the scratchcard which decides who is on the programme, not the BBC. As a result, the guidelines are violated again.
The guidelines say:
BBC programmes should not actively promote the purchase of Lottery tickets or Lottery scratchcards.
Sir Christopher Bland denies that the programme violates that. He says, on pages 4 and 5 of his letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State:
The BBC's Controller of Editorial Policy confirms that the programme devised by the BBC does not breach any of the BBC's editorial policy guidelines".
Well, he would, wouldn't he? Later in his letter, he states:
BBC programmes must not convey the impression that it is promoting any service, product or publication: The proposed BBC programme will not promote sales. Viewers will not need to have purchased a scratchcard to enjoy the programme.
That is all very well, but if we want not just a contradiction, but a total controversion of that statement, let me read the following to the House:
The show is closely linked with the lottery's new £2 TV Dreams scratchcards, which offer three ways to win: instant cash prizes of up to £1,000; prizes of up to £50,000 for a new TV Home Play game; and a chance to join the studio audience for the new show, including the chance to win a special £100,000 jackpot … anyone who matches three TV symbols on their ticket is eligible for the TV Home Play game; they win if the numbers on a second scratch-off area on the ticket match those drawn on the show.

To get yourself on TV you have to match the three-star symbols on your ticket-then you can join the National Lottery Big Ticket, as well as win a guaranteed £1,000.
Once in the studio, 40 winners will form into four teams of ten, each team rooting for the pair of contestants playing on their behalf. At the end of the show, one member of the winning team of supporters will compete for the £100,000 jackpot.
I emphasise this part:
The BBC's difficulty is that the show will indeed promote scratchcard sales: that's its job. When they were first launched, lottery scratchcards sold at the rate of 44 million a week—far more than even Camelot expected. But last month they were down to 15 million a week. The new show is a crucial part of Camelot's strategy to revive scratchcard sales by as much as 20 per cent, and so far it seems to be working: three million extra cards were sold in the week TV Dreams first went on sale.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Kaufman: If I have time, I shall certainly give way, but I should like to complete this argument.
That quotation does not come from me, or from some prejudiced journalist; it comes from the newly published issue of Radio Times. It is the BBC's own journal, saying that the show promotes scratchcard sales, and that that is its job.
The author of that article, totally exposing and controverting the chairman's claim that the BBC is not violating the guidelines and, therefore, the charter, is none other than Nick Higham, the BBC's media correspondent. So if anything demonstrates the lack of truth in what Sir Christopher Bland has been saying to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it is the BBC itself, through its media correspondent and Radio Times.
The Radio Times listing of the programme says:
the new extended show … offers members of the public the chance of a cash prize of up to £100,000 in addition to the regular National Lottery draw.
The BBC has arranged the programme in co-operation with Camelot to promote the sale—successfully, it is turning out—of Camelot scratchcards, in violation of the producers' guidelines and, therefore, in violation of the charter. It is a disgrace that the chairman of the BBC should send my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a letter littered with untruths, deliberately designed to deceive him and to mislead the public.
But it is even worse than that. It is an even bigger disgrace that Sir Christopher, in his letter to my right hon. Friend, should be able to say that the governors, at a meeting on 18 March 1998,
decided unanimously that the planned programme complies with the Charter and Agreement and the Producers' Guidelines",
yet it has been demonstrated, not just by my going through the guidelines, but by what Mr. Higham says in Radio Times, that the guidelines are blatantly and continuously violated, and that therefore the charter is violated.
Mr. John Birt, the director-general of the BBC, says in his preface to the guidelines:
The BBC aims to set the highest editorial and ethical standards in programme-making"—
but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is perfectly clear that the guidelines have been violated—and do not ask me; ask Radio Times. The violation of the guidelines is a violation


of the charter. The governors have connived at the violation of the charter that it gives them the responsibility to uphold. They are not fit to hold their jobs as governors of the BBC. Moreover, they expose the danger of a collection of the great and the good being given the responsibility of upholding a charter bestowed by the House of Commons.
I look to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to deal with this, because what we are dealing with here is a violation of everything that the BBC is supposed to stand for. The BBC is—or has been—respected throughout the world. The BBC created the concept of public service broadcasting, which is one of the glories of broadcasting throughout the world. Now, it has reduced itself to staging and transmitting this shoddy, seedy programme, which it seeks to justify by a farrago of deception. As the BBC is not fit to save its own reputation, I look to my right hon. Friend and the Government to save the BBC from itself.

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for securing the debate. It is clear, following last week's private notice question, that the BBC's involvement with the "TV Dreams" scratchcard is a matter of considerable concern to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I welcome this further opportunity to air some of the particular concerns. I welcome also the opportunity to discuss the wider issue of how the BBC is regulated, especially its accountability to Parliament and to licence fee payers.
I say at the outset that this is an issue that has troubled me greatly and given me considerable cause for thought. The values embodied in the BBC's charter are precious and must be treated by us all, especially the BBC, with the greatest respect. It is because I regard this as such an important issue that I wanted to respond to my right hon. Friend's debate personally.
I should also set out clearly the limits to the Government's role in this matter. The obligations placed on the BBC's broadcasting services are established in its royal charter and agreement. For its domestic public services, they include the number of television and radio services, objectives and programme content and standards and scheduling. Within the charter and agreement, framework decisions about programme content and scheduling are wholly matters for the corporation; the Government have no locus to intervene.
I have to say this strongly: in a democracy there is a vital overriding principle that the Government should not tell any broadcaster—public service or commercial—what and what not to transmit. We can, of course, tell broadcasters that they must stand by their charters; we cannot dictate the nature of their programmes.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I wish to pursue a point that I put to the Secretary of State when he responded to the private notice question of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). I understand that the Government do not have a strict locus in this matter, but we are now told by the BBC that the right hon. Gentleman's Department, before the right hon. Gentleman became the Secretary of State, was

consulted—in September 1994—about the precise details of the arrangement. He was not able to tell me that the other day but apparently that is what the BBC is now telling us. It also tells us that the Department was consulted on the basis of counsel's opinion, but apparently that of counsel employed by Camelot—not the BBC's counsel and certainly not the legal opinion of the Secretary of State's Department. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify precisely on what basis the Department was consulted, if, as he says, he has no locus in this matter?

Mr. Smith: I understand that. Following the hon. Gentleman's question a week ago, I sought information on what had happened. I understand that the BBC approached the then Department of National Heritage seeking guidance on whether the then Secretary of State's approval would be required under clause 12 of the then licence and agreement for the proposed scratchcard programme. The Department's advice at that time was that the Secretary of State's approval was not required. I understand that that was the advice that was sought and given at that time.
The charter and agreement contain specific provisions relating to the sponsorship of BBC programmes. Clause 10.10 of the agreement provides that the BBC may not, without my prior approval, receive payment for broadcasting sponsored programmes and advertising or promotional material. The BBC has set out in detail its approach in this area in its producers' guidelines, which all programme makers and staff are required to observe.
The producers' guidelines contain specific provisions on the coverage of national lottery games and draws, because of its exceptional and unique nature, as well as general provisions on sponsorship and product placement and provisions that deal with prizes and competitions for general entertainment programmes. The national lottery provisions specify, first, that BBC programmes should not actively promote the purchase of lottery tickets or scratchcards or give details of where they may be purchased. I shall return to that point in a moment as it seems to be the kernel of the argument. Secondly, although the term "national lottery" may be used on air where appropriate, there should be no on-air credits for Camelot. Thirdly, the BBC retains editorial control over all BBC programmes and promotions featuring lottery draws or games.
Under the charter and agreement, the BBC governors have an explicit responsibility to ensure that the corporation complies with the terms of the charter and agreement and the producers' guidelines. I, as Secretary of State, have a role only when the BBC is clearly and beyond doubt in contravention of its obligations. Therefore, I have been most concerned to seek assurances that that is not the case here.
On the specific issue of the "TV Dreams" scratchcard, my right hon. Friend is, as he has said, aware of the fact that I wrote immediately to the chairman of the BBC following last week's debate. He has replied, copying his reply to my right hon. Friend and to other hon. Members who spoke in the debate. In his response, Sir Christopher Bland set out the background to the BBC's involvement with the scratchcard. He explained that, in 1994, the BBC began negotiations with Camelot for the exclusive broadcasting rights to the national lottery.
As is made clear in the National Lottery Act 1993, the operator is licensed to create a number of games to be defined collectively as the national lottery. Therefore, Camelot set out plans for a number of games, including the weekly draw, the mid-week draw and a scratchcard game. Camelot treated them as a package of games to which the broadcasting rights would be made available.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Smith: I cannot, as I am afraid that time is very short.
One contract covered the broadcasting rights to all the national lottery games. One of the issues that I believe we must consider for any future franchise is whether such a bundling together of broadcasting rights is either sensible or desirable.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Smith: Time is pressing, so I ask my hon. Friend to be brief.

Mr. Wyatt: If some other broadcaster had won the rights to the lottery, it would not be allowed to continue with the game. How can it be wrong for ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 or BSkyB to broadcast the programme but all right for BBC1? Where is the level playing field?

Mr. Smith: I have in my hand the Independent Television Commission's principles for the broadcasting of matters relating to the national lottery. It states:
The ITC does not regard it as incompatible with its codes for a major Lottery draw to be incorporated in suitable programming, including a light entertainment show.
My hon. Friend's interpretation of the ITC guidelines may not be as robust as it appears at first sight.
The BBC signed the initial contract with Camelot in 1994. Since then, plans for the scratchcard programme have changed considerably after full consideration of the legal parameters and the BBC's editorial requirements. In particular, the BBC has insisted on full editorial control, the prominent featuring of good causes, the introduction of games of skill, a format which means that scratchcard participants will not be directly involved in any of the featured games, the programme having a different name from the scratchcard, the purchase of scratchcards not to be promoted on air, and the BBC's name to be used only in a purely informational manner so as to explain on which channel the programme will be broadcast. The BBC has expressly forbidden the presenters of the programme to appear in any advertising or to be photographed holding scratchcards.
I note what the chairman of the board of governors said in his letter, but I remain concerned, and I spoke to Sir Christopher Bland this afternoon to reiterate that concern. One point that stands out among the various issues that have been raised is whether the programme, by its very existence and content, promotes the sale of a commercial product: scratchcards.
I understand that measures have been taken to ensure that no direct promotion of scratchcards takes place on air. I also understand that the BBC has sought eminent legal advice from Michael Crane QC, who has said that there is no legal bar to the admissibility of the "Big Ticket" programme under the charter and agreement. I still remain concerned about the promotion point. Much hinges on the actual content of the programme.
I have made it clear to the chairman of the board of governors that it is his duty and that of his fellow governors to monitor with the utmost care the programme's content and the issue of promotion.
My right hon.Friend is concerned that the "Big Ticket" programme breaches the provisions of the producers' guidelines dealing with prizes and competitions for general entertainment programmes. Sir Christopher said in his letter that the BBC's legal advice is that
the programme does not violate the Guidelines which state that a programme must not be interpreted as gambling or a lottery.
He explained this apparent contradiction by saying:
in the special circumstances of the National Lottery, the Guidelines explicitly say that the National Lottery provides the prize, as it does for the weekly and mid-week draw.
I have noted the assurances given by Sir Christopher Bland that the planned programme is in accordance with the BBC's obligations, but the real test will come when the programme is broadcast. I welcome the assurance that the governors will keep a close watch on the programme to ensure that it matches up to appropriate editorial and quality standards. I shall keep a close watch, too.
Before I close the debate, I should like briefly to touch on the wider issue of BBC regulation and accountability. A number of steps are needed to enhance public accountability of the governing structure of the BBC. We need more accountability to Parliament. The Select Committee and I are in touch with the BBC to ensure that that is achieved.
I have also introduced more transparency and openness into the procedures for appointing governors. The forthcoming vacancies for the BBC vice chairman and two other governors will be publicly advertised for the first time ever. I hope that the advertisements will encourage applications from—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to One o'clock.